Huang and Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2005] AATA 1206

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 1206

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No  Q2005/447

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		PING HUANG

Applicant

And MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member B J McCabe

Date6 December 2005

PlaceBrisbane

Decision The application is dismissed pursuant to 42A(2) without the Tribunal proceeding to review the decision.

.....................[sgd].........................

SENIOR MEMBER

CATCHWORDS

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for review – applicant did not comply with direction of the Tribunal and failed to attend directions hearing – application dismissed.

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act (1975) s 42

REASONS FOR DECISION

6 December 2005 Senior Member B J McCabe         

1.      Mr Ping Huang is the applicant in these proceedings. Mr Huang is appealing a decision of the Minister to refuse his application for Australian citizenship.

2.      The matter was set down for a hearing in Cairns on 13 December 2005. A listing notice was sent to Mr Huang by post. The matter was apparently listed on the assumption Mr Huang would comply with a direction issued by Conference Registrar Rogers on 17 October 2005. The direction required that Mr Huang provide a statement by 11 November 2005. Upon receipt of the statement, the direction required the respondent to provide a statement of facts and contentions by 25 November. Mr Huang has not complied with the direction. The Minister has been unable to comply with her obligations as a result.

3.      The Tribunal wrote to Mr Huang at his Cairns address on 16 November 2005. The letter noted the applicant’s failure to comply with the direction and advised him that he had seven days to show cause why action should not be taken in respect of the non-compliance. The applicant did not respond to the letter. He also failed to answer follow-up telephone calls and an e-mail from Tribunal staff.

4.      A directions hearing was listed today. Notice of the hearing was sent out on 2 December. The listing notice said the hearing would canvass the applicant’s non-compliance, and discuss whether the matter could proceed in Cairns on 13 December. The applicant did not answer his phone when called repeatedly for the hearing.

5.      Mr Aurora for the respondent asked that the application be dismissed. He pointed out the applicant had not complied with earlier directions and had failed to turn up to the directions hearing. He said the matter was in any event not ready for a hearing on 13 December. He expressed his concern that there was every likelihood the applicant would not appear at the hearing on 13 December if it were not vacated, putting the respondent – and the Tribunal for that matter – to considerable expense.

6.      I note the applicant requires the assistance of an interpreter. (An interpreter was available for today’s hearing.) It is possible the applicant may have mis-read or misunderstood notices that were sent to him. But I think we have gone beyond a minor break in communications. The applicant’s failure to comply with the directions of the Tribunal, respond to communications or attend today’s hearing suggests he has abandoned the application.

7.      In the circumstances, I think it is appropriate to dismiss the application under s 42A(2) without proceeding to review the decision given the applicant’s failure to attend the telephone directions hearing. If the applicant wishes to seek reinstatement of the proceedings pursuant to ss 42A(8), (9) or (10), he is free to do so.

I certify that the 7 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member B J McCabe.

Signed:         .....................................................................................
  Associate:     Sam J Appleton

Date of Hearing  6 December 2005
Date of Decision  6 December 2005
The applicant did not attend the hearing.
The respondent was represented by Mr Neil Arora.