Yu v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2000] FCA 1462

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Yu v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1462

GUO RUI YU v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N 589 OF 2000

SACKVILLE J
5 OCTOBER 2000
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 589 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	GUO RUI YU APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	SACKVILLE J
DATE OF ORDER:	5 OCTOBER 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 589 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	GUO RUI YU APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	SACKVILLE J
DATE:	5 OCTOBER 2000
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 5 June 2000, the applicant filed an application in this Court for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“RRT”), made on 28 April 2000. By that decision, the RRT affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent (“the Minister”) to refuse to grant a protection visa to the applicant.

2. The application identifies two grounds of review:

   ·    first, the applicant claims that the decision of the RRT was induced or affected by fraud, or by actual bias: Migration Act1958 (Cth) (“Migration Act”), s 476(1)(f);

   ·    secondly, the applicant contends that there was no evidence or other material to justify the making of the decision: Migration Act, s 476(1)(g).

3. When the matter was called for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of the applicant. In these circumstances, Mr Smith, who appears on behalf of the Minister, has applied for an order pursuant to Federal Court Rules, O 32 r 2(1)(c), dismissing the action due to the absence of the applicant.

4. The proceedings were set down for hearing today at a directions hearing which took place on 20 July 2000.  At that hearing, the applicant appeared in person, with the assistance of an interpreter.  The orders made on that date provided for the filing and serving of a bundle of relevant documents, and for written submissions to be prepared and filed by each party.

5. Mr Smith has tendered evidence of subsequent correspondence with the applicant. This correspondence indicates that the bundle of documents was sent to the applicant on 7 August 2000 at his address for service. On 26 September 2000, the Minister's outline of submissions was sent to the applicant at the same address.

6. In these circumstances, it seems to me appropriate to make an order dismissing the proceedings. I have taken into account the fact that the applicant plainly has had notice of the hearing and no reason has been proffered for his non-attendance.  I also take into account the fact that nothing has been advanced by the applicant, whether by way of an amended application or evidence, that would suggest that there is any substance in the two grounds of review identified in his application.

7. In particular, there is nothing to support the contention that the RRT's decision was affected by actual bias. Nor, on the material before me, does there appear to be any substance to the contention that the RRT made its decision on the basis of the existence of a particular fact, being a fact which did not exist.

8. Accordingly, the appropriate order is that the application be dismissed. The ordinary principle that costs follow the event should apply. The applicant must 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:             5 October 2000

Counsel for the Respondent:	J Smith
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	5 October 2000
Date of Judgment:	5 October 2000