FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Applicant S1176 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2003] FCA 1615
APPLICANT S1176 OF 2003 v REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ANOR
N1000 OF 2003
EMMETT J
4 DECEMBER 2003
SYDNEY
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY |
N1000 OF 2003 |
|
BETWEEN: |
APPLICANT S1176 OF 2003 APPLICANT
|
|
AND: |
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL FIRST RESPONDENT
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS SECOND RESPONDENT
|
|
EMMETT J |
|
|
DATE OF ORDER: |
4 DECEMBER 2003 |
|
WHERE MADE: |
SYDNEY |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. the application be dismissed;
2. the applicant pay the second 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 |
N1000 OF 2003 |
|
BETWEEN: |
APPLICANT S1176 OF 2003 APPLICANT
|
|
AND: |
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL FIRST RESPONDENT
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS SECOND RESPONDENT
|
|
JUDGE: |
EMMETT J |
|
DATE: |
4 DECEMBER 2003 |
|
PLACE: |
SYDNEY |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 The applicant is a citizen of the People’s Republic of China. He arrived in Australia on 28 September 1999. On 16 December 1999, he lodged an application for a protection (class XA) visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). On 7 February 2000, a delegate of the second respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (‘the Minister’), refused to grant a protection visa and, on 3 March 2000, the applicant applied for a review of that decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’). On 3 August 2000, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant a protection visa.
2 On 20 May 2003, the applicant lodged an application with the High Court. At that stage he was represented by Adrian Joel & Co, solicitors. The proceeding was remitted by the High Court to this Court. On 27 October 2003, I directed the applicant to file and serve, on or before 24 November 2003, a statement of contentions of relevant facts and law and any affidavits upon which he intended to rely at the hearing. No such documents have been filed.
3 When the matter was called today, there was no appearance for the applicant. The explanation for that non-appearance is clear. The Minister relies on evidence that indicates that the applicant has departed Australia. In the circumstances, the Minister asks that the matter be dismissed pursuant to O 10 r 7(2) of the Federal Court Rules.
4 I have considered the reasons of the Tribunal for affirming the delegate’s decision. The Tribunal recorded that the applicant claimed to be a member of Phalun Gong and a member of the Chinese Communist Party. The Tribunal considered that the applicant’s evidence was not credible and that the applicant was not a credible witness. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had made up certain of the evidence that he gave in order to substantiate his application of a protection visa.
5 In the circumstances, I consider that it is appropriate to accede to the Minister’s application.
|
I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett. |
Associate:
Dated: 22 January 2004
|
Counsel for the Applicant: |
No appearance |
|
|
|
|
Solicitor for the Respondents: |
Australian Government Solicitor |
|
|
|
|
Date of Hearing: |
4 December 2003 |
|
|
|
|
Date of Judgment: |
4 December 2003 |
