Ying Chao Mai v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs & Anor [1996] FCA 331

CATCHWORDS IMMIGRATION - application to review decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) to refuse application for refugee status - whether Court has jurisdiction to hear application - amendments to the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) - mandatory time limitation requirements of s478 - application outside prescribed 28 day period - no power in Court to extend time. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - application to review decision of RRT to refuse application for refugee status. Administrative Appeals (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) Migration Legislation Amendment Act 1994 (No 60 of 1994) (Cth), Item 2, Schedule 2. Migration Reform Act 1992 (No 184 of 1992) (Cth), s39 Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s476(1), s478 Chen Shi Lian & He Chuan Qui v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs & Anor, unreported, Tamberlin J, 19 April 1996, cited Fuad Bin Mahboob v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs & Anor, unreported, Lehane J, 15 March 1996, 15 April 1996, applied YING CHAO MAI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ETHNIC AFFAIRS & DOCTOR LYN FONG, MEMBER REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL No NG 280 of 1995 Tamberlin J Sydney 9 May 1996

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY) No. NG 280 of 1995 GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: YING CHAO MAI Applicant AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS First Respondent DOCTOR LYN FONG MEMBER REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent CORAM: TAMBERLIN J PLACE: SYDNEY DATED: 9 MAY 1996 MINUTE OF ORDERS THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed. NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in accordance with Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY) No. NG 280 of 1995 GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: YING CHAO MAI Applicant AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS First Respondent DOCTOR LYN FONG MEMBER REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent CORAM: TAMBERLIN J PLACE: SYDNEY DATED: 9 MAY 1996 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT TAMBERLIN J: Before me is an amended application filed on 18 March 1996, to review under s5 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the "RRT") to refuse the applicant's application for refugee status. The grounds of the application pressed at the hearing are: "1. The decision involved a denial of procedural fairness in that second respondent was obliged to put the applicant on notice of her concerns relating to the authenticity of the letter from the applicant's former employer and give the applicant an opportunity to answer those concerns. 2. The second respondent took into account irrelevant matters, namely: (1) That the applicant had the capacity and the contacts to obtain letterhead stationery to forge a letter from her former employer, (2) That the expression of judgement of the applicant's activities contained in the letter from the former employer was one limited to the applicant's work unit. (3) That the applicant's dismissal from her employment will have no effect upon her prospects of employment in private industry. 3. The second respondent based the decision upon particular facts, and those facts did not exist. Particulars (1) That the applicant has the capacity and the contacts to obtain letterhead stationery to forge a letter from her former employer, .... (4) The decision is unreasonable. (5) The second respondent erred in law in failing to determine the applicant's case on the basis that she is a refugee if there is a real chance that she will suffer persecution on return to china for reasons of political opinion. ....." (Emphasis added) Jurisdiction Although both parties in the proceedings before me took the view that the Court had jurisdiction in the present matter, I consider that the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the application.