Tju v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2000] FCA 1024

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Tju v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1024

TJU LIE OUW v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

N 212 OF 2000

MOORE J
26 JULY 2000
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 212 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	TJU LIE OUW APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	MOORE J
DATE OF ORDER:	26 JULY 2000
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.   The application is 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 212 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	TJU LIE OUW APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	MOORE J
DATE:	26 JULY 2000
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”).  The applicant is an Indonesian national of Chinese ethnicity.  She arrived in Australia in 1998.  Her application for a protection visa was initially refused and an application for the review of that decision was heard and determined by the Tribunal on 9 February 2000.  As is apparent from the reasons of the Tribunal, the applicant did not appear at the hearing conducted by the Tribunal notwithstanding an invitation extended to her by the Tribunal to do so.

2. The application in this Court was filed on 13 March 2000.  The applicant appeared at a directions hearing on 2 May 2000 and the matter was then listed for hearing at 9.00am today.  There is nothing to suggest that the applicant did not fully understand that the matter was listed for hearing today, notwithstanding that the directions hearing on 2 May 2000 was conducted through an interpreter.

3. The application raises as grounds of review an allegation of bias on the part of the member of the Tribunal and an allegation that there was no evidence or other material that justified the making of the decision.  I have read the Tribunal's decision and it is not immediately apparent to me that either of the errors alleged are evident.  Indeed, the decision of the Tribunal has the appearance of being a balanced and considered one dealing fully with the circumstances of the applicant.  However, counsel for the Minister submits that the application be dismissed because the applicant has not appeared.  In the circumstances, that appears to me to be the appropriate course to follow and, accordingly, under O 32 r 2 I order that the application is dismissed.  I also order that the applicant pay the Minister’s costs.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore.

Associate:

Dated:             31 July 2000

The applicant did not appear.
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr R Beech-Jones
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	26 July 2000
Date of Judgment:	26 July 2000