Chen v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
[2000] FCA 1135
•4 AUGUST 2000
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Chen v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1135
LAN CHEN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N 658 OF 2000EMMETT J
4 AUGUST 2000
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 658 OF 2000
BETWEEN:
LAN CHEN
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
EMMETT J
DATE OF ORDER:
4 AUGUST 2000
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs.
3.The respondent notify the applicant in writing at the addresses shown in the application of the terms of Order 35 rule 7(2)(a).
Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 658 OF 2000
BETWEEN:
LAN CHEN
APPLICANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
EMMETT J
DATE:
4 AUGUST 2000
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This application was filed on 21 June 2000 and appointed 9.30 am today for the first directions hearing. When the application was called in the directions list today there was no appearance for the applicant. In the absence of appearance for the applicant, the solicitor for the respondent asks that the matter be dismissed pursuant to Order 10 rule 3. Under Order 10 subrule 3(2) if an applicant does not appear before the Court on the directions hearing, the Court may dismiss the application or make any other order which it thinks proper.
The application was filed without naming a legal representative. It shows the address of the applicant on the front page as 183/422 Pitt Street, Sydney. However, at the end of the application it specifies a different address for service, being 1104 Tower 2, 600 Railway Parade, Hurstville, NSW 2220. I am informed by the solicitor for the respondent that there was in Court earlier a person who indicated that she had assisted the applicant to prepare the application and that the address in Hurstville was her address. However, she informed the respondent’s solicitor that she no longer had contact with the applicant.
I have considered the reasons of the Tribunal published on 8 May 2000 for affirming the decision of the Minister’s delegate not to grant a protection visa to the applicant. The grounds specified in the application are:
“1. The decision was induced or affected by actual bias of the officer.
2.There was no evidence or other materials to justify the making of the decision.”
No particulars of the grounds are specified. However, in that part of the application dealing with the reasons why the applicant is aggrieved by the decision there is a commentary on some aspects of the reasons of the Tribunal.
In its reasons, the Tribunal indicated that having observed the applicant giving her evidence, the Tribunal was satisfied that she had been truthful about her experiences in China before her departure. However, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the circumstances deposed to by the applicant constitute persecution or that any of the conduct by which she complains was motivated by a Convention reason.
In the absence of any appearance for the applicant and in the light of the intimation that it may not be possible to communicate with the applicant there appears to be nothing to be gained by incurring further costs in a further appearance in Court. Accordingly, I propose to make an order under Order 10 rule 3. However, I will direct the respondent to send written notice addressed to the applicant at the address shown in the application setting out of the terms of Order 35 rule 7(2)(a).
I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett. Associate:
Dated: 17 August 2000
Solicitor for the Respondent: Mr M Allatt for the Australian Government Solicitor Date of Hearing: 4 August 2000 Date of Judgment: 4 August 2000
0
0
0