Guo v Migration Review Tribunal

[2002] FCA 328

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Guo v Migration Review Tribunal [2002] FCA 328

LING LING GUO v MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ANOR

N 1569 OF 2001

EMMETT J
20 MARCH 2002
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 1569 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	LING LING GUO APPLICANT
AND:	MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL FIRST RESPONDENT
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	EMMETT J
DATE OF ORDER:	20 MARCH 2002
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        the application be dismissed;

2.        the applicant pay the respondent’s costs.

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 1569 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	LING LING GUO APPLICANT
AND:	MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL FIRST RESPONDENT
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	EMMETT J
DATE:	20 MARCH 2002
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant is a national of the Peoples Republic of China.  She first arrived in Australia on 16 November 1997 on a business short-stay visa on 24 November 1997.  She lodged an application for temporary business entry class UC visa. On 22 May 2000 a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (“the Minister’s delegate”) decided to refuse the visa.  On 16 June 2000 the applicant lodged an application for review of that decision by the Migration Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”). 

2. On 8 November 2001 the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Minister’s delegate.  By application lodged with the Court on 27 November 2001 the applicant seeks an order of review of that decision.  When the matter was called today, the day fixed for hearing, there was no appearance for the applicant.  The respondents, therefore, move for summary dismissal pursuant to Order 32 rule 2 of the Federal Court Rules. 

3. I have read the reasons of the Tribunal and have had the benefit of written submissions on behalf of the second respondent.  There appears to me to be no error in the reasons of the Tribunal.  Further, it is clear that the decision of the Tribunal was a privative clause decision within the meaning of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The decision is therefore not open to review. It seems to me, therefore, that the application would have been doomed to failure even if the applicant had appeared.

4. Accordingly, I order that the application be dismissed.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett.

Associate:

Dated:            20 March 2002

Counsel for the Applicant:	No appearance
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr J. Smith
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	20 March 2002
Date of Judgment:	20 March 2002