Jian, W.C. v Senator Bolkus, N

[1994] FCA 366

JUDGMENT No. ..~%.~d

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
AUSTWIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY	)
1 No. ACT G 49 of 1993
DISTRICT REGISTRY	)
)
GENERAL DIVISION	)

BETWEEN: WANG CHEN JIAN

Applicant

AND: SENATOR NICK BOLKUS, Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs

Respondent

MINUTE OF ORDER

JUDGE MAKING ORDER :  Neaves J. 14 JUN 1994

M E R A L COURT OF

DATE OF ORDER 8 June 1994 M~STRAUA

36 of the Federal Court Rules.
WHERE MADE	: Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The application filed on 26 July 1993 be dismicped.

2.   The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application and of the motions notice of which was respectively given on 20 January 1994 and 25 March

1994, includ~ng reserved costs.

Note:	Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order
JN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
I

IAN CAPITAL TERRITORY	)
\ NO. ACT G 49 of 1993

DISTRICT REGISTRY ) )

BETWEEN: WANG CHEN JIAN

Applicant

AND: SENATOR NICK BOLKUS, Minister

for Immiqration and Ethnic	-
Affairs
Respondent

m: Neaves J.

m: 8 June 1994

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 10 March 1994 I gave judgment upon a motion, notice of which was given on 20 January 1994, on behalf of Senator Nick Bolkus, Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, ("the respondent') for an order that the application by Wang Chen Jian ("the applicant") under the Administrative

Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) ("the Judicial

Review Act") be dismissed as to the whole of the relief claimed. That application, which had been filed on 26 July 1993, sought an order of review in respect of a decision made by a delegate of the respondent on 25 June 1993 that the applicant does not have the status of a refugee within the meaning of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees that was done at Geneva on 28 July 1951 and the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees that was done at New York on 31 January 1967. The grounds on which the order for review was sought, as set out in the application, were as follows:

"1. That the Respondent breached the rules of natural justice by his failure to provide the Applicant the opportunity of an oral hearing prior to making his final decision refusing the Applicant refugee status.

2.  That the Respondent's decision refusing the Applicant refugee status was an improper exercise of the power conferred by the Migration Act 1958 (Commonwealth) in that:

(a)	He took into account irrelevant considerations in making the decision namely, hearsay material with no basis in fact.
(b)	He failed to take into account relevant considerations, namely the well grounded fear of persecution held by the Applicant should the Applicant be deported to the People's Republic of China.

(c) That the Respondent's decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have made that decision, namely that the Applicant is not a refugee within the meaning of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees that was done at Geneva on 28 July 1951 or of the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees that was done at New York on 31 January 1967."

In the judgmenf given on 10 March 1994, I traced the history of the matter from 26 July 1993 to 4 February 1994, the date on which the motion was heard. I need not now repeat that history. I concluded that the applicant had, within the

meaning of Order 10, r.7 of the Federal Court Rules, failed to comply with orders of the Court directing him to take a step in the proceeding and that that failure was continuing. I then considered whether the circumstances were such that the power conferred by the rule should be exercised and, in considering that question, I had regard to the grounds upon which the applicant had relied in challenging the decision refusing him refugee status and whether those grounds appeared to have substance. Referring to the grounds set out in the application, the judgment proceeded:

"The first of those grounds alleges a breach of the rules of natural justice. Counsel for the applicant informed the Court that this ground is intended to raise only the issue that was the subject of the proceeding in this Court intituled Zhang de Yong v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs in which judgment was given by French J. on 6 October 1993 (reported (1993) 118

ALR 165) and which is the subject of an appeal to a Full

Court of this Court sub nom. Chen Zhen Zi v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, that appeal having been heard but not yet determined. In other words, that ground will stand or fall in accordance with the judgment of the Full Court.

The Court was also informed by counsel for the applicant

that Ground 2(a) is not to be pressed.

Ground 2(b) lacks substance. The decision-maker concluded that the applicant's assertion that he had a well founded fear of persecution should he return to the People's Republic of China could not be acceptedr. It cannot be said that he failed to take that assertion into account.

Ground 2 (c) is stated in general terms, namely that the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have made it. The matters relied upon to support this ground are not particularised or otherwise identified in the dpplication or in any other document. In the course of his submissions, counsel for the applicant stated that what is intended to be argued under this ground is that the delegate of the respondent relied on a statement that when the 'Jeremiah' boat people went back to the People's Republic of China they were not

persecuted but the material before the delegate was 'so negligible as to amount to not being evidence upon which any weight could be given'.

Counsel for the applicant then foreshadowed an amendment of the application to add a ground based on ss.5(l)(h) and 5(3)(b) of the Judicial Revlew Act and the filing in support of that ground of affidavits obtained or to be obtained from a number of 'Jeremiah' boat people who, having returned to the People's Republic of China after being refused refugee status in Australia, returned to Australia towards the end of November 1993 to again seek refugee status. This evidence is said to relate to the question whether the 'Jeremiah' boat people were persecuted on their return to the People's Republic of China.

To establish this ground, it is necessary that the applicant, by an examination of the findings of fact expressly or impliedly made by the decision-maker, identify with particularity the relevant finding or findings of fact and the basis upon which that finding is, or those findings are, said to be critical to the decision that the applicant be refused refugee status. Having done so, it is necessary for the applicant to establish that there was no evidence or other material before the decision-maker to justify the making of the decision. The applicant must also establish, by admissible evidence, that the particular fact or facts so

identified did not exist: Curragh Queensland Mining Ltd v

Daniel (1992) 34 FCR 212 at pp.219-224.

The material at present before the Court goes no distance towards establishing that the applicant has an arguable case either on ground 2(c) as set out in the application or on the foreshadowed ground based on ss.5(l)(h) and 5(3)(b) of the Judicial Review Act. The matters put to

evidentiary material before the Court is the copy of the	the Court are no more than assertions. The only
document described as 'the delegate's determination and reasons for making it' annexed to the affidavit of Mrs Le sworn on 4 November 1993. That document does not, on its face, contain any reference to the 'Jeremiah' boat'people
or to their treatment on their return to the People's Republic of China let alone set out findings of fact by the decision-maker in relation to those matters. Thus, no foundation has been laid upon which a contention based on ss.5(l)(h) and 5(3)(b) might be erected.
The history of the matter is unsatisfactory and tends to support the conclu$ion that the applicant does not have an arguable case except in relation to Ground 1 which is the subject of the undetermined appeal before a Full Court of this Court. Nevertheless, I do not think it appropriate at this stage to order that the application be dismissed except as to that ground. I am prepared to allow the applicant one further opportunity, limited in time, to satisfy the Court that he has an arguable case in relation to other issues such that the case should be allowed to proceed to a hearing. I, therefore, make the orders and give the directions set out below."

The orders made and directions given were as

follows :

THE COURT:

1.   Orders that the motion notice of which was given by the respondent on 20 January 1994 be adjourned to 14 April 1994.

2.   Orders that the costs of the motion be reserved.

3.   Directs that the applicant file and serve not later than 25 March 1994 notice of a motion returnable before the Court on 14 April 1994 for leave to file and serve an amended application under the Administrative Decisions

(Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth).

4.   Directs that the notice of motion be accompanied by a draft of the proposed amended application setting out with particularity the grounds upon which the applicant seeks to rely and by the affidavits upon which he will seek to rely in the event that leave is granted to

file and serve the amended application.'

5 .    Grants liberty to each party to apply to the Court on 7 days' notice."

.-

Judgment of the Full Court in Chen Zhen Zi v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs was given on 25

March 1994 and is reported (1994) 121 ALR 83. It is sufficient for present, purposes to note that the Court answered adversely to the appellant the issue raised by the appeal, namely whether the rules of natural justice entitled applicants for refugee status seeking departmental review of an initially adverse decision to an oral hearing by the decision-maker in every case. As the first of the grounds set out in the application filed on 26 July 1993 in the present case was said to stand or fall in accordance with the judgment of the Pull Court, that ground is no longer tenable.

On 25 March 1994, a notice of motion was filed on behalf of the applicant, returnable on 14 April 1994, for an order that the applicant have leave to file and serve an amended application and for certain orders in relation to the costs of the motion and of the respondent's motion notice of which was given on 20 January 1994. The notice of motion was accompanied by a draft of the proposed amended application, an affidavit of the applicant sworn or affirmed on 18 January 1994, an affidavit of Tan Zhi Wei sworn or affirmed on 18 January 1994, an affidavit of Guo Bing Xin sworn or affirmed on 18 January 1994, an affidavit of Richard John Egan sworn or affirmed on 18 January 1994 and an affidavit of Robert James

that those affidavits were all sworn or affirmed prior to the	Powrie affirmed on 3 February 1994. The comment must: be made
matter coming before the Court on 4 February 1994 yet no reference to them was made at that hearing.
The draft amended application set out the grounds of the application in 7 paragraphs. Each of those paragraphs,

b

other than par.6, contained a number of sub-paragraphs. In all some 49 matters were identified. Predominantly the draft amended application was no more than a litany of assertions which were unsupported by any affidavit material directed to

establishing the matter asserted and which lacked any indication of the relationship between the matter asserted and either the reasons given by the decision-maker for the decision refusing refugee status or the decision-making process that was followed. The affidavits to which I have referred were largely directed to matters irrelevant to the question whether the decision refusing refugee status was tainted with legal or procedural error. In particular, the affidavit material was not directed to the question which had been referred to when the matter was before the Court on 4 February 1994 as the issue on which the applicant intended to rely, namely the alleged treatment of the "Jeremiah" boat people on their return to the People's Republic of China. Nor did the draft amended application contain any ground, as previously foreshadowed, based on ss.S(l)(h) and 5(3)(b) of the Judicial Review Act. The material placed before the Court was clearly insufficient to enable the respondent to know the case he was required to meet. It was also conceded by counsel

grounds which could have no application in the present case	for the applicant that the draft amended application contained
though the grounds might be relevant to some other' cases pending before the Court.
On 14 April 1994, after hearing submissions by counsel for the applicant and counsel for the respondent, I refused the applicant leave to file and serve an amended application for an order of review in the form of the draft dated and filed on 25 March 1994. I dld so on the basis that counsel for the applicant had failed to satisfy me that the applicant had any reasonably arguable ground which would warrant the matter being allowed to proceed. Notwithstanding that I had characterised the course I took on 10 March 1994 as giving the applicant one further opportunity, limited in time, to satisfy the Court that he had an arguable case, I extended to the applicant a further indulgence which I described as the very last opportunity for the applicant to put the matter in proper form. I adjourned until 12 May 1994 the respondent's motion to dismiss the application and the applicant's motion for leave to file and serve an amended application. I directed that, if the applicant wished to continue the proceeding, he file and serve on or before 29 April 1994 a further draft amended application accompanied by the affidavits on which he intended to rely to support the application for substantive relief. Costs were reserved.
before 29 April 1994 or, indeed, prior to the matter again No documents were filed by the applicant on or coming before the Court on 12 May 1994. On that date, neither
the solicitor on the record for the applicant nor the c'ounsel who had previously appeared for the applicant was in attendance. Another solicitor, Mr J. Nicholl of the firm of Jill McSpedden & Associates, appeared and informed the Court that there had been what he described as "a fundamental rift" )
between the applicant and the solicitor who had been acting for him. The Court was also informed that Mr Nicholl had been instructed in the matter approximately 3 days previously.
To allow Mr Nicholl to file a notlce of change of solicitor in the matter and to obtain further instructions I adjourned the hearing until 20 May 1 9 9 4 . Mr Nicholl was informed that the adjournment was to give the applicant a further, albeit very limited, opportunity to satisfy the Court that there are arguable grounds available on which the application should be allowed to proceed to a hearing. Hr Nicholl was also informed that, unless he could satisfy the Court on the adjourned date that good reasons existed why the application should not be dismissed, it was likely that an order to that effect would be made. Costs were again reserved.
No further material was filed on behalf of the applicant prior to the matter again coming before the Court on
20 May 1 9 9 4 . Mr Nicholl appeared for the applicant and informed the Court that he had taken some advice in the matter
as a result of which he nominated a limited number of subparagraphs in the rejected draft amended application dated 25 March 1 9 9 4 on which it was said the applicant might be able to rely. The subparagraphs of the draft amended application so nominated were as follows:

t

"2. The making of the decision was an improper exercise

of power in that the Respondent failed to take into
account relevant considerations, namely:-

(b) Material on the country files relating to the People's Republic of China which supported in whole or in part the Applicant's claim for refugee status.

3.  The exercise of power by the Respondent was so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have so exercised the power in that the Respondent:-

(a)	Failed to give the Applicant the benefit of the doubt as set out in the United Nations High Commission for Refugees Handbook on 'Procedures and Criteria for Deteninlng Refugee Status'.
(c)	Purportedly relied on a report of the Red Cross Society when the interpretation given and inferences drawn from that report by the Respondent were not capable of being made.
(d)	Had a rejection mentality or an institutional bias in relation to applications for refugee status by boat people.
(f)	Preferred the report of the Red Cross and 'the unidentified source' over the affidavit sworn by Ling Ping in a related matter and supplied by the Applicant to the Respondent, and submissions by MS Marion Le on behalf of the

Applicant regarding the fate of the .Jeremiah returnees, the letter from Mr Ling Chuan Fu in	regard to Mr Feng Jing Zhong and other
conflicting material before the Department.

(i) Failed to consider the high political profile imputed to the Applicant through his

association with the Isabella Group including

the high media interest in the Applicant's rescue in the Kimberley region of Western Australia, the hunger strikes undertaken by members of the Isabella Group and other political protests against the Chinese Government and the relevance to the Applicant's sur place claim.

(j)	Failed to consider the views of the repreaentatlves of the office of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees in the
determination by the Refugee Status Review Committee.
(m)	Failed to consider the opinion of the United Nations High Commission for Refugee Delegates regarding the need to have written assurances from the PRC Government in regards to the personal safety of people from the Isabella Group if the Australian authorities were to consider returning them to China.
(q)	Failed to consider the effect of persecution under China's one child policy.
. . . .

Mr Nicholl conceded that some of these possible grounds

related not to the present applicant but to other applicants
who have commenced proceedings under the Judicial Review Act.

Mr Nicholl was unable to elaborate upon those possible grounds or to explain the relationship of any of them to the reasons given by the decision-maker for the .decision

making process that was followed. He could point to no	refusing the applicant refugee status or to the decision-
evidentiary material which might be thought to support any of them. He sought the further adjournment of the matter for a period of at least one month to examine whether there was material available to the applicant to support those possible grounds.
I have given the matter further consideration since it was before me on 20 May 1994. Nothing that has been put before the Court, however, suggests that the applicant has an
arguable case which should be allowed to proceed to a hearing. A lengthy period of time has elapsed since the application was filed and, notwithstanding that the applicant has been advised by competent practitioners, the respondent has not yet been given any adequate information as to the grounds upon which the application is made and is not in a position to know the case he has to meet. The case falls within the situations described by Wilcox and Gummow JJ. in Lenijamar Pty Ltd v AGC (Advances) Ltd (1990) 27 FCR 388 at p.396:

"The discretion conferred by 0 10, r 7 is unconfined, except for the condition of non-compliance with a direction. As it is impossible to foresee all of the circumstances under which the rule might be sought to be used, it is undesirable to make any exhaustive statement of the circumstances under which the power granted by the rule will appropriately be exercised. We will not attempt to do so. But two situations are obvious candidates for the exercise of the power: cases in which the history of non compliance by an applicant is such as to indicate an inability or unwillingness to co-operate with the Court and the other party or parties in having the matter ready for trial within an acceptable period and cases - whatever the applicant's state of mind or resources - in which the non-compliance is continuing and

occasioning unnecessary delay, expense or other prejudice	to the respondent. Although the history of the matter
will always be relevant, it is more likely to be decisive in the first of these two situations. Even though the most recent non-compliance may be minor, the cumaative effect of an applicant's defaults may be such as to satisfy the judge that the applicant is either subjectively unwilling to co-operate or, for some reason, is unable to do so. Such a conclusion would not readily
be reached; but, where it was, fairness to the respondent
would normally require the summary dismissal of the proceeding."

The application filed on 26 July 1993 is dismissed.
The applicant must pay the respondent's costs of the

application and the motions notice of which was respectively given on 20 January 1994 and 25 March 1994, including all reserved costs.

Other applications (25 in all) for orders of review under the Judicial Review Act which raise similar questions to those raised in the present case are pending in the Court. Those applications are identified in the schedule to this judgment. In each case a motion seeking an order pursuant to Order 10, r 7 of the Federal Court Rules is also pending. The applications and the motions were adjourned to the same dates as the application in the present case and the motions filed therein were adjourned.

For reasons similar to those advanced in relation to the present application, each of those other applications is dismissed. The applicant in each case must pay the respondent's costs of the application and of the motion

therein including any reserved costs. THE SCHEDULE

No. of ~roceedinq	ADD^ icant
ACT G 50 of 1993	Jie Shi Fang
ACT G 51 of 1993	Chen Jian
ACT G 52 of 1993	Zhong Yi
ACT G 53 of 1993	Lin Chuan Fu
ACT G 54 of 19 3	MO Feng Zhen
ACT G 55 of 19 3 3	Chen Zhu Chong
ACT G 56 of 1993	Huang Yun
ACT G 57 of 1993	Chen Jun Ming
ACT G 58 of 1993	Quan Jie
ACT G 59 of 1993	Huang Jun Hua
ACT G 60 of 1993	Quan Guo Yu
ACT G 61 of 1993	Cao Dai Ming
ACT G 62 of 1993	Song Wen Zhong
ACT G 63 of 1993	Shi Yong Ping
ACT G 64 of 1993	Lin Wei Xing
ACT G 65 of 1993	Sun Shao Gang
ACT G 66 of 1993	Guo Bing Xin
ACT G 67 of 1993	Liang Xing Hai
ACT G 68 of 1993	Chen Wei Rong
ACT G 69 of 1993	Fan Bowen
ACT G 70 of 1993	Tang Jie Xin
ACT G 71 of 1993	Liang Xiang
ACT G 72 of 1993	Liang Chao Gun
ACT G 73 of 1993	Fu Xue Bing
ACT G 74 of 1993	Shie Zhen Liang

I certify that this and the preceding

13 pages are a true copy of the

Reasons for Judgment herein of the

Honourable Mr ~ustice	Neaves.
Dated: 8 June 1994

Counsel for the applicant : Mr J. Nicholl

Solicitors for the applicant : Jill McSpedden & Associates

Counsel for the respondent : Mrs J. Bonsey

Solicitors for the respondent : Australian Government

Solicitor

Date of hearing	: 12 and 20 May 1994
Date of judgment	: 8 June 1994

I

JN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
1
I No. ACT G 5 0 of 1993

CT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISU

BETWEEN: JIE SHI FANG

Applicant

AND: SENATOR NICK BOLKUS, Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs

Respondent

LINUTE OF ORDER

-:	Neaves J.
PATE OF ORDU	8 June 1994
WHERE MADE	Canberra
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The application filed on 26 July 1993 be dismissed.

2.   The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application and of the motion notice of whiqh was given on 20 January 1994, including reserved costs.

&&g: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
\
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY	)
1 No. ACT G 51 of 1993
DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN: CHEN JIAN

Applicant

AND: SENATOR NICK BOLKUS, Minister

for Immiaration and Ethnic	-
Af	f airs

Respondent

MINUTE OF ORDER

JUDGE MAKING ORDER :  Neaves J .

DATE OF ORDER	8 June 1994
WHERE MADE	Canberra
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The application filed on 26 July 1993 be dismissed.

2.   The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the

application and of the motion notice of whi$h was

given on 20 January 1994, including reserved costs.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

\

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
I
A RALI	)
\ No. ACT G 52 of 1993
DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN: ZHONG YI

Applicant

AND: SENATOR NICK BOLKUS, Minister

for Immigration and Ethnic

Af f alrs

Respondent

NINUTE OF ORDER

J	'	:	Neaves J .
DATE OF ORDEE	8 June 1994
WHERE MADE	Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 

1.    The application filed on 26 July 1993 be dismissed.

2.   The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application and of the motlon notlce of whi5h was given on 20 January 1994, including reserved costs.

Note:  Settlement and entry of orders is dealt wlth in Order

36 of the Federal Court Rules.

JN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
fiUSTRAtIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY	1
) No. ACT G 53 of 1993
DISTRICT REGISTRY	) )
GENERAL DIVISIOB	)

BETWEEN:

Applicant

AND: SENATOR NICK BOLKUS, Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs

Respondent

MINUTE OF ORDER

JUDGE MAKING ORDER :  Neaves J .

U T E OF ORDER	8 June 1994
WHERE MADE	Canberra
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The application filed on 26 July 1993 be dismissed.

2.   The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application and of the motion notice of whi5h was given on 20 January 1994, including reserved costs.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
JiUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY	) \ No. ACT G 54 of 1993
PISTRICT REGISTRY	)
)
GENERAL DIVISION	1

Applicant

AND: SENATOR NICK BOLKUS, Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs

Respondent

MINUTE OF ORDER

JUDGE MAKING ORDER :	Neaves J .
DATE OF ORDER	8 June 1994
WHERE MADE	Canberra
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The application filed on 26 July 1993 be dismissed.

2.   The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the

application and of the motion notice of whi~h was

given on 20 January 1994, including reserved costs.

:  Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order

36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
1
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY	) No. ACT G 55 of 1993
DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN: CHEN ZHU CHONG

Applicant

AND: SENATOR NICK BOLKUS, Minister

for Immigration and Ethnic	-
Affairs
Respondent

MINUTE OF ORDER

DDGE MAKING ORDER :	Neaves J.
DATE OF ORDER	8 June 1994
WERE MADE	Canberra
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The application filed on 26 July 1993 be dismissed.

2.   The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application and of the motion notice of which was given on 20 January 1994, including reserved co'sts.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order

36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IAN CAPITAL TERRITORY	)
) No. ACT G 56 of 1993

-	D	Y
GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN: HUANG YUN

AND: SENATOR NICK BOLKUS, Minister
for Immigration and Ethnic

Applicant

Af f airs

Respondent

- ? , Z i DER : Neaves J.

PATE OF ORDER	8 June 1994
kmRu!am	Canberra
m COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The application filed on 26 July 1993 be dismissed.

2.   The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application and of the motion notice of which was given on 20 January 1994, including reserved co'sts.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

J,N THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) )

RAL	1
1 No. ACT G 57 of 1993

m T R I C T REGISTRY	)
GENERAL DIVISION	)

BETWEEN: - G

Applicant

AND: SENATOR NICK BOLKUS, Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs

Respondent

MINUTE OF ORDER

-:  Neaves J .

OF ORDER 8 June 1994

WHERE MADE	Canberra
=E COURT ORDERS THAT2

1.    The application filed on 26 July 1993 be dismissed.

2.   The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application and of the motion notice of which was given on 20 January 1994, including reserved cdsts.

: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt wlth in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
1

AUSTRALIAN C	APITAL TERRITORY	1
) No. ACT G 58 of 1993

ICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION	)
1
1

BETWEEN: gUAN JIE

Applicant

AND: SENATOR NICK BOLKUS, Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs

Respondent

JUDGE MAKING ORDER :  Neaves J .

QmmxsmM	8 June 1994
lBmui!u	Canberra

: - p

1.    The application filed on 26 July 1993 be dismissed.

2.   The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application and of the motion notice of which was given on 20 January 1994, including reserved c6sts.

m: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order

36 of the Federal Court Rules.

2 N THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) I

&ISTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY	)	NO. ACT G 59 of 1993
-
GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN:

Applicant

AND: SENATOR NICK BOLKUS, Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs

Respondent

MINUTE OF ORDER

JUDGE &&KIN-	:	Neaves J.
DATE OF ORDER	8 June 1994
mwLmLx	Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 

1.   The application filed on 26 July 1993 be dismissed.

2.   The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application and of the motion notice of which was given on 20 January 1994, including reserved c6sts.

Noter Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order

36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

)

I

A US

T

RALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

USTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION

)

\ NO. ACT G 60 of 1993

BETWEEN: QUAN GUO YV

Applicant

AND:  -SBOLKUS, Minister

for Immiaration and Ethnic	-
Affairs
Respondent

MINUTE OF ORDER

J	-:	Neaves J.
DATE OF ORDER	8 June 1994
WHERE MADE	Canberra

m COURT ORDERS THAT: 

1.    The application filed on 26 July 1993 be dismissed.

2.   The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application and of the motion notice of which was given on 20 January 1994, including reserved cdsts.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal-Court Rules.

JN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
\
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY	! No. ACT G 61 of 1993
DISTRICT REGISTRX	1
1
GENERAL DIVISION	)

BETWEEN: C G -

Applicant

AND: SENATOR NICK BOLKUS, Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs

Respondent

JUDGE MAKING ORDER :	Neaves J.
PATE OF ORDER	8 June 1994
WHERE MADE	Canberra
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The application filed on 26 July 1993 be dismissed.

2.   The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application and of the motion notice of which was given on 20 January 1994, including reserved cdsts.

: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

JN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY	)
\ No. ACT G 6 2 of 1993
DISTRICT REGISTRY

BETWEEN: SONG WEN ZHONG

Applicant

AND: SENATOR NICK BOLKUS, Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs

Respondent

MINUTE OF ORDER

JUDGE MAKING ORDER :	Neaves J.
PATE OF ORDER	8 June 1994
WHERE MADE	Canberra
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The application flled on 2 6 July 1993 be dismissed.

2.   The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application and of the motion notice of which was given on 2 0 January 1994, including reserved cdsts.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt wlth in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
1
PUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY	)
I No. ACT G 63 of 1993
USTRICT REGISTRY	)
1

GENERAL DIV N IS10 1

BETWEEN: SHI YONG PING

Applicant

AND: SENATOR NICK BOLKUS, Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs

Respondent

MINUTE OF ORDER

JUDGE W N G	ORDER : Neaves J.
m OF ORDER	8 June 1994
WHERE MADE	Canberra
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The application filed on 26 July 1993 be dismissed.

2.   The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application and of the motion notice of which was given on 20 January 1994, including reserved cdsts.

Note:  Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order

36 of the Federal Court Rules.

JN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
1
B USTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY	)
) No. ACT G 64 of 1993
DISTRICT REGISTRY	1
1
m E R A L DIVISIO&	1

BETWEEN: LIN WE1 XING

Applicant

AND: S E N A T O R N I C K Minister

for Immiaration and Ethnic	-
Af f	airs

Respondent

MINUTE OF ORDER

JUDGE MAKING ORDER :	Neaves J.
PATE OF ORDER	8 June 1994
t a m L k @ u	Canberra
m E COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The application filed on 26 July 1993 be dismissed.

2.   The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application and of the motion notice of which was given on 20 January 1994, including reserved cdsts.

Note:  Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order

36 of the Federal Court Rules.

AUSTRRLIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

No. ACT G 65 of 1993

BNERRL DIVISION

BETWEEN :

Applicant

AND: SENATOR NICK BOLKUS, Minister

for Immigration and Ethnic

Af f airs

Respondent

m y : Neaves J .

OF ORDER 8 June 1994

v	Canberra
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The application filed on 26 July 1993 be dismissed.

2.   The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application and of the motion notice of which was given on 20 January 1994, including reserved cdsts.

m: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order

36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTmIA	)
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY	) No. ACT G 66 of 1993
PISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN: S

Applicant

AND: SENATORNICK Minister

for Immigration and Ethnic

Affairs

Respondent

JUDGE MAKING ORDER :  Neaves J.

-	D	8 June 1994
WHERE MADE	Canberra
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The application flled on 26 July 1993 be dismissed.

2.   The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application and of the motlon notice of which was given on 20 January 1994, including reserved cdsts.

:  Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order

36 of the Federal Court Rules.

JN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	) 1
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY	)
) No. ACT G 67 of 1993
DISTRICT REGISTU	1
)
GENERAL DIVISION	1

BETWEEN: LIANG XING HA1

Applicant

AND: SENATOR NICK BOLKUS, Minister

for Immiaration and Ethnic	-
Affairs
Respondent

MINUTE OF ORDER

JUDGE MAKING ORDER :	Neaves J.
DATE OF ORDER	8 June 1994
WHERE MADE	Canberra
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The application filed on 26 July 1993 be dismissed.

2.   The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application and of the motion notice of which was given on 2 0 January 1994, including reserved cdsts.

: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

_IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTWIA	)
)
EUSTRALIAN CAPITATA TERRITORY	1 No. ACT G 68 of 1993
RICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN: CHEN WE1 RONG

Applicant

AND: SENATOR NICK BOLKUS, Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs

Respondent

MINUTE OF ORDER

ING ORDER : Neaves J.

M E	OF ORDER	8 June 1994
y.uwumx	:	Canberra

=E COURT ORDERS THAT: 

1.    The application filed on 26 July 1993 be dismissed.

2.   The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application and of the motion notice of which was given on 20 January 1994, including reserved cdsts.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

i

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	) )
fiUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY	)
1 No. ACT G 69 of 1993
DISTRICT REGISTU	1 1
GENERAL DIVISION	1

BETWEEN: FAN BOWEN

AND: SENATOR NICK BOLKUS, Minister
for Immigration and Ethnic

Applicant

Af f airs

Respondent

MINUTE OF ORDER

JUDGE MAKING ORDER :	Neaves J.
-	8 June 1994

WERE MADE : Canberra

1.    The application filed on 26 July 1993 be dismissed.

2.   The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application and of the motion notice of which was given on 20 January 1994, including reserved cdsts.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY	)
) No. ACT G 70 of 1993
PISTRICT REGISTRY	1
)
GENERAL DIVISION	)

BETWEEN: TANG JIE XIN

Applicant

AND: S E N A T O R S I C K Minister

for Immigration and Ethnic

Affairs

Respondent

MINUTE OF ORDER

JUDGE MAKING ORDER :	Neaves J.
8 June 1994
WHERE MADE	Canberra
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The application filed on 26 July 1993 be dismissed.

2.   The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application and of the motion notice of which was given on 20 January 1994, including reserved cbsts.

Note:  Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order

36 of the Federal Court Rules.

JN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
1
aUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY	)
I No. ACT G 71 of 1993
m I C T	REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN: LIANG XIANG

Applicant

AND: SENATOR NICK BOLKUS, Minister

for Immiaration and Ethnic	-
Affairs
Respondent

MINUTE OF ORDER

-MAKING	Neaves J.
DATE OF ORDER	8 June 1994
WHERE MADE	Canberra
m COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The application filed on 26 July 1993 be dismissed.

2.   The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application and of the motion notice of which was given on 20 January 1994, including reserved cdsts.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	) )
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY	j NO. ACT G 72 of 1993
DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN: LIANG CHAO GUN

Applicant

AND: SENATOR NICK BOLKUS, Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs

Respondent

MINUTE OF ORDER

JUDGE MAKING ORDER :	Neaves J .
PATE OF ORDER	8 June 1994
WHERE MADE	Canberra
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The application filed on 26 July 1993 be dismissed.

2.   The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application and of the motion notice of which was given on 20 January 1994, including reserved casts.

:  Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order

36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY	1
) No. ACT G 73 of 1993
DISTRICT REGISTRY	) )
GENERAL DIVISION	)

BETWEEN: FU XUE BING

Applicant

AND: SENATOR NICK BOLKUS, Minister

for Immiaration and Ethnic	-
Affairs
Respondent

MINUTE OF ORDER

JUDGE MAKING ORDER :  Neaves J.

OF ORDER 8 June 1994

WHERE MADE	Canberra
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The appllcatlon filed on 26 July 1993 be dismissed.

2.   The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application and of the motion notice of which was glven on 20 January 1994, including reserved cdsts.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

JN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
)
1 No. ACT G 74 of 1993
)

GENERAL DIVISION 1

BETWEEN: SHIE ZHEN LIANG

Applicant

AND: SENATOR NICK BOLKUS, Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs

Respondent

JUDGE MAKING 0- : Neaves J.

OF ORDER : 8 June 1994

J l w l L W a	Canberra
m COURT ORDERS THqT:

1.    The application filed on 26 July 1993 be dismissed.

2.   The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application and of the motion notice of which was given on 20 January 1994, including reserved cdsts.

Note:  Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order

36 of the Federal Court Rules.