Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Wu v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs
[2000] FCA 306
WU RU ZHEN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION &
MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
W 142 of 1999
CARR J
16 MARCH 2000
PERTH
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY W 142 OF 1999
BETWEEN: WU RU ZHEN
Applicant
AND: THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent
JUDGE: CARR J
DATE OF ORDER: 16 MARCH 2000
WHERE MADE: PERTH
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs. The costs are to be taxed on a basis which takes into account the similarity between the issues in this application and those in application number W 136 of 1999.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY W 142 OF 1999
BETWEEN: WU RU ZHEN
Applicant
AND: THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent
JUDGE: CARR J
DATE OF ORDER: 16 MARCH 2000
WHERE MADE: PERTH
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application for an order of review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal made on 25 October 1999 by which the Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the respondent not to grant a protection visa to the applicant. The applicant, who is a citizen of the Peoples Republic of China, arrived in Australia by boat and without any travel or identification documents on or about 12 March 1999. She is the spouse of Mr Mo Ri Chang in respect of whose application I have today delivered judgment and published reasons for that judgment. The applicant in this matter was originally included in Mr Mo's application for a protection visa which he lodged with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs ("the Department") on 23 March 1999. On 26 August 1999 that application was refused by a delegate of the Minister. On 30 August 1999 the applicant sought review of the delegate's decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal. 2 The factual and procedural background to this matter, the claims made by the applicant and the Tribunal's findings were, as might be expected, relevantly identical in the applicant's case before the Tribunal to those of her husband. Her application to this Court for review was also in identical terms to that made by her husband. At the hearing this morning orders were made in both applications that they be heard together and that the evidence in each application be evidence in the other. 3 For the reasons given today by me in Mr Mo's application (Application W136 of 1999), I have decided that this application should also be dismissed. I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Justice Carr.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate