Lin v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2001] FCA 572

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Lin v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 572

SHOU XING LIN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

V 139 of 2001

WEINBERG J
4 MAY 2001
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	V139 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	SHOU XING LIN APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	WEINBERG J
DATE OF ORDER:	4 MAY 2001
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The application be dismissed. 

2.   The applicant to 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
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	V139 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	SHOU XING LIN APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	WEINBERG J
DATE:	4 MAY 2001
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application under Pt 8 of the Migration Act 1986 (Cth) for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal given on 31 January 2001 in which the Tribunal affirmed a refusal of the delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to grant a protection visa.

2. The application was filed by the applicant in person.  According to the document which was clearly prepared without the benefit of legal assistance, the applicant claims to be aggrieved by the decision because “the senior member has not been (sic) investigate the case properly.”  The applicant also claims that he will be prosecuted or executed by the government of the People’s Republic of China due to his “strong political behaviour in China”.  The only ground of review identified in support of the application is said to be “strong political behaviour in China”.

3. The applicant has prepared a written submission which has been translated into English and which summarises his case.  I have read that submission.  Perhaps not surprisingly it invites nothing more than merits review of the Tribunal’s decision.  There is in accordance with the usual practice a court book of 147 pages.  I have read the court book and I have examined with some care the reasons given by the Tribunal for rejecting the applicant’s claim for a protection visa.  I am unable to discern any error in that reasoning which could give rise to a ground of review in this Court.

4. The applicant appeared before me this morning with the assistance of an interpreter.  He was unable to point to any error on the part of the Tribunal which might justify the matter being remitted for reconsideration.  In these circumstances, I have no alternative but to dismiss the application with costs.

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

Associate:

Dated:             4 May 2001

Counsel for the Applicant:	Applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms M E Kennedy
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing:	4 May 2001
Date of Judgment:	4 May 2001