FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Runio v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 64 MIGRATION– dismissal of proceedings under Federal Court Rules O 32 r 2(1)(c) on the basis that the applicant has not appeared – whether application filed by applicant precisely identifies any alleged error of law in the approach taken by the Refugee Review Tribunal Federal Court Rules O 32 r 2(1)(c) ALBERTO RUNIO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS NG 854 OF 1998 JUDGE: SACKVILLE J DATE: 3 FEBRUARY 1999 PLACE: SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NG 854 OF 1998 BETWEEN: ALBERTO RUNIO Applicant AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent JUDGE: SACKVILLE J. DATE: 3 FEBRUARY 1999 PLACE: 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 NG 854 OF 1998 BETWEEN: ALBERTO RUNIO Applicant AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent JUDGE: SACKVILLE J. DATE: 3 FEBRUARY 1999 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The application in this matter was filed on 20 August 1998. The applicant, a citizen of the Philippines, sought review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("RRT") made on 30 July 1998. The RRT affirmed a decision of a Delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs ("the Minister") to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa. 2 A directions hearing was held on 2 October 1998. The applicant appeared in person at that directions hearing. Orders were made for the matter to be set down for hearing today, 3 February 1999. Other directions were made for the conduct of the hearing including directions for the filing of evidence and of written submissions. 3 On the same date as the directions hearing, the Australian Government Solicitor ("AGS") notified the applicant of the orders that had been made. That letter was sent to the applicant at his address for service as recorded on the application. The applicant, of course, had been aware of the orders since he was present in Court. The letter however provided confirmation of the precise terms of the orders. 4 The applicant did not file any evidence, nor has he complied with the direction to file written submissions. The AGS sent the respondent's submissions to the applicant on 1 February 1999. I have been informed that those submissions were sent by express post. When the matter was called today, the applicant did not appear. Counsel for the respondent, Mr Godwin, applies pursuant to the Federal Court Rules, Order 32 Rule 2(1)(c), for an order dismissing the proceedings on the basis that the applicant has not appeared. 5 The evidence establishes that the applicant has been aware of the date of the hearing for a period of four months. The applicant has neither appeared at the hearing nor filed any evidence or written submissions. No explanation has been provided to the Court for the absence of the applicant. I should add that the decision of the RRT was based upon a finding that the applicant was not a credible witness. Accordingly, the RRT did not accept the factual basis for the applicant's claims. 6 The application filed on behalf of the applicant does not identify with precision any alleged error of law in the approach taken by the RRT. It must be said that there is no obvious basis for any challenge to the RRT's decision. In these circumstances, I think the appropriate course is to dismiss the proceedings. Accordingly, I make an order to that effect. I also order the applicant to pay the respondent's costs. I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Sackville. Associate: Dated: 3 February 1999 Counsel for the Applicant: None Counsel for the Respondent: Mr D Godwin Solicitor for the Respondent: Mr A Pearson, Australian Government Solicitor` Date of Hearing: 3 February 1999 Date of Judgment: 3 February 1999