Zheng v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2001] FCA 493

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Zheng v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 493

RONG XIN ZHENG v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

N 234 OF 2001

EMMETT J
20 APRIL 2001
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N234 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	RONG XIN ZHENG APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	EMMETT J
DATE OF ORDER:	20 APRIL 2001
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application be dismissed.
   2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs.

2. The respondent notify the applicant of the terms of Order 35 rule 7(2)(a) of the Federal Court Rules.

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	N234 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	RONG XIN ZHENG APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	EMMETT J
DATE:	20 APRIL 2001
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant is a citizen of the Peoples Republic of China.  He arrived in Australia on 30 March 2000. On 28 April 2000 he lodged an application for protection (class XA) visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.  On 25 May 2000 a delegate of the respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (“the Minister”) refused to grant a protection visa. 

2. On 7 June 2000 the applicant applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) for a review of that decision.  On 23 January 2001 the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant a protection visa.  The applicant then applied to this Court by application for an order of review filed on 13 March 2001.  This is the first return of that application and there has been no appearance for the applicant.  The Minister asks that the matter be dismissed pursuant to Order 10 Rule 3(2).  Order 10 Rule 3 provides:

   “(1) If the Court thinks fit and the parties agree, the Court may hear and determine the proceeding on a directions hearing.

   (2) If no applicant appears before the Court on a directions hearing the Court may dismiss the application.

   (3) If no respondent appears before the Court on a directions hearing the Court may give such directions as it thinks fit.”

3. I have considered the reasons of the Tribunal for affirming the decision not to grant a protection visa.  Those reasons record that the applicant claimed that he was at risk in the Peoples Republic of China because of political activity in China and in Papua New Guinea where he spent some time.  The Tribunal referred to various matters that caused the Tribunal to doubt the credibility of the applicant’s claims that he had been a democracy activist in the Peoples Republic of China and in Papua New Guinea from 1996.

4. The Tribunal concluded that if the applicant returned to the Peoples Republic of China he would not face a real chance of persecution on a Convention ground.  The Tribunal was not satisfied on the evidence before it that if the applicant returned to the Peoples Republic of China he would face a real risk of persecution for a convention reason. Nor was it satisfied that he had a well-founded fear of persecution within the meaning of the Convention.

5. The application to this court specifies three grounds, being the grounds referred to in ss 476(1)(a), (e) and (g) of the Migration Act.  However, no particulars were furnished with the application, no particulars have been subsequently provided.  It is not apparent to me from a reading of the reasons that any of the grounds referred to in the application have been established.  Accordingly, it appears to me to be appropriate to dismiss the application pursuant or Order 10, Rule 3.

6. I shall order the applicant to pay the Minister’s costs of the application.  I shall also direct the Minister to notify the applicant of the terms of Order 35 rule 7(2)(a).

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett.

Associate:

Dated:             14 May 2001

Counsel for the Applicant:	No appearance
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	20 April 2001
Date of Judgment:	20 April 2001