Shang v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2000] FCA 1763

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Shang v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1763

YU ZHONG SHANG v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N 991 of 2000

SACKVILLE J
22 NOVEMBER 2000
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 991 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	YU ZHONG SHANG APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	SACKVILLE
DATE OF ORDER:	22 NOVEMBER 2000
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 991 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	YU ZHONG SHANG APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	SACKVILLE
DATE:	22 NOVEMBER 2000
PLACE:	SYDNEY

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application to review a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal, made on 14 August 2000. The Tribunal affirmed a decision made by a delegate of the respondent (“the Minister”) on 10 June 1999. The delegate refused to grant the applicant a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa. It will be seen that some 14 months elapsed between the decision of the delegate and that of the Tribunal.

2. When the matter was called on for hearing today, the applicant did not appear. Mr Wilson, who appears on behalf of the Minister, seeks an order pursuant to Federal Court Rules (“FCR”), O 32, r 2(1)(c), that the proceedings be dismissed by reason of the non-appearance of the applicant.

3. The background to the matter is as follows. An application for an order of review was filed on 11 September 2000. A directions hearing was subsequently held on 20 October 2000. On that occasion, the applicant appeared in person, with the assistance of an interpreter. Orders were made for the filing of written submissions by each party and the matter was listed for hearing today.

4. On 17 November 2000, the Minister's solicitors sent by courier an outline of its submissions. That outline was sent to the applicant's address for service as noted on the application to this Court. 

5. It appears therefore that the applicant is well aware of the hearing scheduled for today but has apparently chosen not to appear before the Court.

6. In determining the application made by Mr Wilson, I take into account that the application for an order of review does not identify any of the grounds available under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 476, other than a general and unparticularised assertion that the Tribunal erred in law. A reading of the Tribunal's decision indicates that the applicant failed because he was unable to satisfy the criterion specified in Migration Regulations (Cth), Sch 2, cl 457.223(6)(b), that is to say he was unable to demonstrate that the activity in which he proposed to be engaged was the “subject of an approved business nomination by the employer”.

7. Nothing in the materials before me indicates any basis for suggesting that the Tribunal was incorrect in deciding that the applicant had failed to satisfy the criterion laid down in the regulations.

8. In these circumstances, the appropriate course is to dismiss the application and to order the applicant to pay the Minister's costs.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice SACKVILLE.

Associate:

Dated:             22 NOVEMBER 2000

Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr B Wilson
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing:	22 November 2000
Date of Judgment:	22 November 2000