FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Wong v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 371 MIGRATION – protection visa – application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal – where no appearance for applicant – where no grounds specified within s 476(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – summary dismissal Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 476(1) Federal Court Rules,O 20, r 2 YOKE CHING WONG v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS N 1515 OF 1999 EMMETT J SYDNEY 24 MARCH 2000 IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 1515 OF 1999 BETWEEN: YOKE CHING WONG Applicant AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent JUDGE: EMMETT J DATE OF ORDER: 24 MARCH 2000 WHERE MADE: 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 N 1515 OF 1999 BETWEEN: YOKE CHING WONG Applicant AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent JUDGE: EMMETT J DATE: 24 MARCH 2000 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 I have before me an application for an order of review filed on 30 December 1999. The application relates to a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') given on 15 December 1999, affirming a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant a protection visa to the applicant. The matter first came before me on 18 February 2000 when the applicant appeared in person. On that occasion I directed the applicant to file and serve an amended application and any affidavit upon which she sought to rely by 15 March 2000. I then listed the matter for hearing before me today. 2 When the matter was called on today, there was no appearance for the applicant and the solicitor for the Minister seeks an order under Order 20 Rule 2 of the Federal Court Rules for summary dismissal of the application. The grounds of the application contained in the document filed on 30 December 1999 are as follows: "I am qualified to meet the criteria as defined by the UNHCR for refugee. I was a priest in Malaysia. I had been persecuted and harassed by the Malaysian police for preaching the Christianity to children. The laws in Malaysia prohibit gospel to be preached to children under age of 18. I was discriminated against by the existing Malaysian laws and therefore I should be protected by the Australian Government as I would be arrested and imprisoned if I had to return to Malaysia." 3 Under that part of the application designed to indicate the standing of the applicant, the following appears: "1. I was not granted an interview by the DIMA. I did not know that what the agent had done for me if I were granted an interview I would have been able to clarify the incorrect claims that the original agent had prepared for me. 2. I attended RRT interview/hearing and I provided a correct version of my claim but without detail. RRT queried and did not believe my claim because they said these new claims had not been included in my original application. I was not given opportunity to furnish my claims in full details to RRT. RRT made a decision as soon as the hearing was completed on the same day. 3. I think both DIMA and RRT have conspired to deny my application without a correct interpretation of the definition of 'Refugee' according to the UNHCR convention. They did not give me a fair chance to represent myself." 4 Those assertions have not been supported by any evidence on behalf of the applicant. No ground is specified in the application that would satisfy the requirements of section 476(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). In the circumstances I order that the application be dismissed. I order that the applicant pay the Minister's costs. I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett. Associate: Dated: 7 April 2000 Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms J Maurer for the Australian Government Solicitor Date of Hearing: 24 March 2000 Date of Judgment: 24 March 2000