Aec16 v Minister for Immigration

[2018] FCCA 2199

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AEC16 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2018] FCCA 2199

Catchwords:

MIGRATION – Applicant himself applies for dismissal of his application for judicial review.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

Applicant: AEC16

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 2721 of 2016

Judgment of: Judge Dowdy

Hearing date: 9 August 2018

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 9 August 2018

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant appeared in person

Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms A. Zinn

Solicitors for the First Respondent: Mills Oakley

THE ORDERS OF THE COURT ARE AS FOLLOWS:

1. The Application filed in this Court on 5 October 2016 is, at the request of the Applicant, dismissed.

2. The Applicant pay the First Respondent’s costs of the proceeding in the sum of $5,400.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 2721 of 2016

AEC16

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Ex Tempore
(Revised from Transcript)

1. In this matter the Applicant filed an Application in this Court on 5 October 2016 to set aside the decision of the Second Respondent, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) dated 1 September 2016 affirming the decision of the Delegate of the First Respondent, the Minister of Immigration & Border Protection (Minister), dated 1 September 2014 which refused to grant to him a Protection (Class XA) visa (Protection visa) pursuant to the Protection visa application which he had lodged on 21 March 2014. 

2. In his Application, the Applicant relied on three Grounds, the first of which, in effect, pleaded that the Tribunal appeared to be biased, the second Ground which asserted that the Tribunal denied the Applicant natural justice or procedural fairness and the third Ground that the Tribunal failed to put to the Applicant for comment independent country information on which it relied in its decision.

3. The matter was set down for a directions hearing in this Court on 4 November 2016 when the Applicant appeared in person and Ms Wong appeared for the Minister.  The matter was then set down for hearing today, and I raised with the Applicant at that time that because of the claims in the Grounds, being of bias and breach of natural justice and procedural fairness, that if he wished to run these arguments he would probably need to get a transcript of the Tribunal hearing.  I advised him that the orders to which he agreed on that date put the responsibility of doing so on him.  I further pointed out to him that the charges that were, in effect, made in the Grounds, were serious ones and he would have to prove them and establish them properly.

4. This morning, the Minister’s Submissions and the Applicant’s Grounds were read and translated to the Applicant by the interpreter and the case proceeded with the Applicant making such submissions as he was able to, with the obvious disadvantage that he is not a lawyer.  Ms Zinn, who appeared for the Minister, also made submissions, and I then invited the Applicant to reply. 

5. In the result, I offered to the Applicant some time to compose his thoughts before he replied, and he took that opportunity for some 15 minutes and I adjourned the matter for that period and purpose. When I came back into Court, the Applicant indicated through the interpreter that he wanted to withdraw his case.  That was obviously a serious step for him, and I gave him the opportunity to make a phone call or consult with anyone further.

6. I asked Ms Zinn to tell the Court and the Applicant what costs order and what quantum of costs she would be seeking upon withdrawal, and she indicated that the Minister would be seeking the sum of $5,400 which she said, and I accept, is below the relevant scale.  The Applicant was obviously concerned about how long he would have to pay that amount, and I indicated to him that it would be up to him to approach the Minister to see whether some payment arrangement by instalments could be entered into.  Nevertheless, the Applicant has confirmed again that he wishes to withdraw his case, and that is his right and so I will dismiss his Application.

I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Dowdy

Date:  20 August 2018