FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NANK of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs

[2002] FCA 1110

APPLICANT NANK OF 2002 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

N 658 OF 2002

HILL J

12 AUGUST 2002

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. the application be dismissed with costs.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1                     The applicant is a citizen of Thailand who arrived in Australia on 16 December 2001.  She applied for a protection visa which application was refused.  She then sought review of the decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (“the Minister”) by the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”). 

2                     On 4 April 2002 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant advising her that it was unable to make as favourable decision on the basis of the papers and invited her to give oral evidence and present arguments at a hearing on 2 May 2002.

3                     She did not appear on that date.  The Tribunal considered the material in the application and expressed the view that it was not satisfied that she had a well founded fear of persecution such as to bring her within the definition of refugee under the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28 July 1951 as modified by the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, done at New York on 31 January 1967.  The Tribunal was also of the view that the applicant fabricated her claims of facing harm in Thailand.

4                     The application was filed with the Court 5 July 2002. The application form indicated that the matter would be listed for hearing at 9.30 am today.  The registry of the Court later advised the applicant that her application would be listed for hearing on 29 July. 

5                     The letter was forwarded to the applicant at the address shown as her address for service on the application.  It seems that the letter was returned to the Court.  The matter was called on that day and stood over until today.  A letter was sent to the applicant advising of the new date, that being a date coinciding with the date on the original application. That letter too was returned to the Court.

6                     An application has been made by the Minister that the application be dismissed.  I propose to do so.  I should note that there is nothing in the Tribunal's reasons for decision which indicate that the Tribunal made any error of law even assuming that the Court has jurisdiction to deal with the matter consequent on the amendments to the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).  The application will accordingly be dismissed with costs.

Associate:

Dated:              9 September 2002