Han v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2002] FCA 500

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Han v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 500

YONG QIANG HAN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

N 1305 OF 2001

HILL J
17 APRIL 2002
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 1305 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	YONG QIANG HAN APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	HILL
DATE OF ORDER:	17 APRIL 2002
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. the application be dismissed.
2. the applicant pay the Minister’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 1305 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	YONG QIANG HAN APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	HILL
DATE:	17 APRIL 2002
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. Before the court is an application which may be treated at least for the present purposes as an application to review the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal affirming the decision of the respondent Minister or a delegate that the applicant was not entitled to a protection visa.

2. The application came before me on 29 October last year when the applicant was present and had the aid of an interpreter.  On that day I listed the matter for hearing this morning and arranged for an interpreter to be present.  I am told from the bar table that a copy of the Minister's submissions on the application was forwarded to the applicant at the address shown as the address for service.  When the matter was called this morning the applicant did not appear.  At my request the solicitor for the Minister endeavoured to call the telephone number which the applicant had given as his address for service but it did not answer.  It would seem that the telephone number was the phone number of a migration agent and not that of the applicant.

3. Counsel for the Minister has requested that I dismiss the application on the basis that the applicant is not present. I propose to do so under Order 32 Rule 2(1)(c) of the Federal Court Rules. I should say that I have read the decision of the Tribunal and there is nothing in that decision which I can see which would suggest that the Tribunal made an error which would ground an order setting it aside under s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

4. Accordingly I order that the application be dismissed and the applicant pay the Minister's costs.

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

Associate:

Dated:            24 April 2002

Counsel for the Applicant:	No appearance
Counsel for the Respondent:	M Allars
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing:	17 April 2002
Date of Judgment:	17 April 2002