Applicant S1514 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2004] FCA 583

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant S1514 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 583

APPLICANT S1514 of 2003 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

N353 of 2004

JACOBSON J
SYDNEY
4 MAY 2004

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY		N353 of 2004
BETWEEN:	APPLICANT S1514 of 2003 APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	JACOBSON J
DATE OF ORDER:	4 MAY 2004
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The motion be dismissed.

2.That the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the motion as assessed or taxed or as agreed between the parties.

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	N353 of 2004

BETWEEN:	APPLICANT S1514 of 2003 APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	JACOBSON J
DATE:	4 MAY 2004
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is one of eight motions under O 53 r 10(2)(b) of the Federal Court Rules for an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal against the judgment of Emmett J given on 20 February 2004.  The motion was filed on 16 March 2004.  The applicant has given an explanation for his delay and I do not decide the matter against him on that ground.

2. The relevant background to the proceedings and the reasons why his Honour refused to make an order nisi are referred to in my judgment in the matter of Applicant S1198 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 577.

3. The applicant has filed an affidavit in support of his motion.  The affidavit states that his Honour's decision is not correct because it has not given the applicant an opportunity to place legal arguments before the court and the affidavit also states that his Honour did not consider all legal factors relevant to the application. The affidavit states that further information is to be submitted in the future.

4. The applicant appeared before me in person this morning. His only submissions were that he is from a minority group in Bangladesh of which there are only about 100,000 people.  He told me that the Refuguee Review Tribunal (“the RRT”) did not consider all the relevant facts.  He said his business was attacked after he left Bangladesh and that his family had suffered very considerable hardship.  He said that he does not have a solicitor and he asked for more time to get a solicitor in order to obtain evidence about the oppression of his minority group in Bangladesh. 

5. I do not consider that it is appropriate to grant an adjournment. His Honour observed at [28] that the refusal of an order nisi does not give rise to any estoppel and furthermore that the Minister had assured the court that there would be no submission in any future proceedings that the refusal of an order nisi would constitute a bar to the commencement of fresh proceedings.  It is, therefore, open to the applicant to bring fresh proceedings if, indeed, he is able to put forward a case.  He will need to do so very promptly because the effect of the order that I will make is that, as I understand it, his bridging visa will expire within 28 days.

6. It is apparent that nothing has been put before me this afternoon to satisfy me that there is any doubt about the correctness of his Honour's judgment.  There is nothing to suggest that there was any evidence which brought the matter within the principles stated by the High Court in the decisions of Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal & Ors, Lie v Refugee Review Tribunal & Ors (2002) 190 ALR 601. I am satisfied that an extension of time would be futile because there are no prospects of success on appeal.

7. The order that I will make is that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the motion as taxed or assessed or as agreed between the parties.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Jacobson.

Associate:

Date:               4 May 2004

Applicant self represented
Counsel for the Respondent:	J D Harris SC
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	4 May 2004
Date of Judgment:	4 May 2004