AUA16 v Minister for Immigration

[2016] FCCA 1885

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUA16 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2016] FCCA 1885

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Migration & Refugees Division) – Protection (Class XA) visa – extension of time – whether the Tribunal’s decision revealed a jurisdictional error – no satisfactory explanation for delay – no arguable jurisdictional error revealed by the grounds of the application – application for extension of time dismissed.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.476, 477

Cases cited:
Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia (2010) 241 CLR 118

Applicant: AUA16

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 815 of 2016

Judgment of: Judge Street

Hearing date: 22 July 2016

Date of Last Submission: 22 July 2016

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 22 July 2016

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person.

Solicitors for the Respondents: Mr T Galvin
Minter Ellison Lawyers

ORDERS

1. The application for an extension of time under s.477 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) is dismissed.

2. The Applicant pay the costs of the First Respondent fixed in the amount of $3,416.00.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 815 of 2016

AUA16

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for a Constitutional writ within the Court’s jurisdiction under s.476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) in respect of a decision of the Tribunal made on 1 July 2015 affirming a decision of the delegate not to grant the applicant a Protection (Class XA) visa.

2. The application in this Court was filed on 7 April 2016 and accordingly is 246 days out of time and the applicant needs an extension of time under s.477 of the Migration Act 1958.  The applicant was found to be a citizen of Fiji.  The applicant and his brother initially applied for protection on 16 January 2014.  At that stage the applicant was still a minor. 

3. The applicant claimed to fear persecution arising out of circumstances relating to his father who was a senior prisons officer in Fiji and said to be an opponent of the current regime and a supporter of the former Prime Minister.  It was claimed that the applicant and the rest of his family feared harm in Fiji from the military and the regime generally. 

4. The applicant first entered Australia on 16 October 2013 on a visitor visa that had been granted on 7 January 2013.  The applicant’s brother had first been granted a visitor visa on 7 January 2013 and arrived in Australia at the same time as the applicant in these proceedings.  The delegate found that it was not satisfied the applicant had a real chance of being persecuted for a Refugee Convention reason and was not satisfied the applicant’s brother and the applicant’s fears were well-founded. 

5. On 20 July 2014 the applicant and his brother applied for review.  By letter dated 25 March 2015 the Tribunal invited the applicant and his brother to attend a hearing on 15 June 2015 to give evidence and present arguments. 

6. A response to hearing was sent indicating both the applicant and his brother would attend and in fact the applicant and his brother did attend to give evidence and present arguments on 15 June 2015.  The Tribunal identified the applicants’ claims and evidence and found that there were credibility issues in relation to the applicants’ claims surrounding their father.  The Tribunal noted that the credibility and plausibility issues in relation to the claims of the applicants were such that the Tribunal had difficulty in accepting or being satisfied as to any of the substantive claims advised by the applicant and his brother. 

7. The Tribunal found that it was not satisfied as to the credibility of the applicant and his brother and was not satisfied the applicants had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason. The Tribunal found it was not satisfied that there were substantial grounds for believing that as foreseeable consequence of the applicants being removed from Australia to Fiji there is a real risk that they will suffer significant harm.  It was for those reasons the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate.  Following the decision delivered by the Tribunal the applicant turned 18. 

8. The applicant and his brother after the time he had turned 18 continued to pursue ministerial intervention.  On 19 May 2016 a Registrar of the Court made orders providing the applicant with an opportunity to file an amended application, affidavit and submissions.  The applicant filed a further affidavit and on the day of the hearing today handed up two pages of a document entitled “Grounds for Application for Extension of Time” which the applicant indicated he wished to have treated as if they were grounds in support of his application for relief from this Court. 

9. At the commencement of the hearing the Court explained to the applicant that the hearing was a hearing under s.477 of the Migration Act 1958 for an extension of time. The Court explained that this required a satisfactory explanation for the delay as well as a sufficiently arguable case to warrant an extension of time in the interests of the administration of justice. The Court explained a sufficiently arguable case required an arguable case that the Tribunal’s decision was affected by relevant legal error. 

10. The Court explained that the relevant legal error had to be either an excess of statutory power by the Tribunal or a denial of procedural fairness to the applicant.  The Court explained that in summary (substance) it was determining whether there was an arguable case that the Tribunal’s decision was either unlawful or unfair.  The Court explained that if not satisfied that there was sufficient explanation for the delay and a sufficiently arguable case the application would be dismissed. 

11. The Court explained that if satisfied there was a sufficiently arguable case and explanation for the delay the Court would fix the matter for hearing on another day. The Court explained to the applicant that it proposed to identify the evidence and then hear submissions from the applicant and then hear submissions from the solicitor for the first respondent and then hear submissions from the applicant in reply.  The applicant confirmed that he understood the nature of the hearing as explained by the Court.

12. In relation to the extension of time under s.477 of the Migration Act 1958 the applicant sought to explain that he was a minor.  He was only a minor for a period of approximately two months after the delivery of the Tribunal’s decision.  The applicant identified that he did not have legal representation.  That, of itself, is not a ground on which there is a satisfactory explanation for the delay.  It is clear that the applicant and his brother were seeking to pursue a ministerial intervention and that is not a ground which provides an adequate explanation for delay.  On the material before the Court, the Court is not satisfied that there is an adequate explanation for the delay in the present case which is of a substantial period. 

13. However, the more significant issue is the merits of the application.  The grounds of the application are as follows:

    1. I, Maximilian Paul P.A. Davis, applicant, am seeking political asylum in Australia under the Refugees Convention 1951, the 1967 Protocol and the Complimentary ground subsequently introduced.

    2. 17 Decrees (attached) masterminded by Muslim Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum and promulgated by the Bainimarama coup regime immediately after their coup d'etat in December 2006 which terminated the elected government of Qarase, expressly target the genocide and annihilation of the native Fijian race of which I am a member. I and my race of people are under an intense siege, and intolerable conditions of life that are so frustrating, exasperating, tormenting and conducive to internal and communal chaos and disorder, even early and sudden demise/death to members of our group.

    3. 99% of the native Fijian race of people, of which I am a member are devoted and committed Christians and we make up over 60% of Fiji's population. Being the principal stakeholder, we were never consulted regarding the enshrinement of 'secularism' in the 2013 Constitution, neither any of the other stakeholders nor the myriads of interest groups across the whole of Fiji. This is the imposed and illegal 2013 con Constitution which had been written by 2 Muslim men, namely Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum and his crony John Sammy who lives in NZ, and after its ratification by the pro-regime and former military Commander, 'rubber-stamp' President Epeli Nailatikau, the illegal 2013 Constitution was imposed upon us, the citizens of Fiji on 6 September 2013 by the barrel of the gun.

    4. Now we cannot make reference to God's moral law in the context of public policy because that would be too religious, and if we don't conform to secular mandates then we are considered a threat to national security. We are told by the regime-thugs that our faith in Jesus Christ is a private matter or matters of the heart, all of which are reduced to personal preferences and sentiments, and that all religious beliefs are treated as equally irrelevant to matters of public policy. Our group is under intense siege with conditions of life that are unacceptable and intolerable.

    5. Now we cannot pray or preach or sing of Jesus Christ in any public place, whether in schools, government offices, Parliament, outside of our homes, parks and so forth. As devoted and committed Christians, we are under siege, because we can no longer continue in the Christian traditions of our forefathers which they started in 1835 when English Missionaries brought the Gospel of Jesus Christ to our shores. Our forefathers' devotion and commitment to Jesus Christ, their practice of Christian values and principles have been evident in the inclusion of the Christian faith as the religion of Fiji in the Preamble of the Instrument of the 1874 Deed of Cession when Fiji was ceded to Queen Victoria of Great Britain (attached, see 'Wakaya Letter'). We are a people under siege by the laws written by Muslim Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum and his croy Muslim man John Samy who lives in New Zealand.

    6. The 17 Decrees promulgated by the thug-regime of Bainimarama legalises the alienation of our land, our fishing grounds ('qoliqoli') and dismantles in whole by law all our peak bodies such as the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC) and our key institutions such as the Native Land Trust Board {NLTB). As a result, we the native Fijian race cannot hold meetings whether at national level, provincial level, regional level or at village level unless and only if we can convince the Police Commissioner to issue a permit for our meeting, then he gives it begrudgingly. Even then we have to expect members of the security forces and intelligence to be present in our meeting, who demand production of minutes and attendance sheets, with full names, addresses and all contact details of everyone in attendance to be signed. The secretary and the chair must also sign then the Minutes is given to them to take back to the Police Commissioner. We are under watch 24/7 and what we say in the meeting/s is analysed by the intelligence and security forces and should anything we say is found remotely touching on sedition or inciting communal antagonism, those guilty are picked up immediately and taken to the barracks for interrogation. Our race is under an intense siege and we are being dismembered piece by piece but cannot speak against the repugnant laws because they are the laws of Fiji now, written by 2 Muslim men as previously stated, and imposed upon us by the barrel of the gun. Our obedience and conformity are under conditions of intolerable stress and duress.

    7. Our GCC (Bose Levu Vakaturaga) has been abolished and so the meetings they once held 4 times a year to discuss at national level the interests of the Fijian race. Our 14 Provincial Councils (Bose ni Yasana) have been abolished and the quarterly meetings they once held for the interests of their respective peoples and provinces are gone. The Regional Councils (Bose ni Tikina) have been abolished and the monthly meetings they once held to inform and strengthen regional ties within their respective local peoples have ceased. Even at village level, village councils (Bose Va-Koro) have been abolished. We, the Fijian race are under siege and are being dismembered limb by limb and dying internally as we submit under intolerable duress to these repugnant laws, written by 2 Muslim men, namely Khaiyum and John Samy and imposed upon us by the barrel of the gun to accept them as the laws of Fiji as of now.

    8. Our traditional fishing grounds have been removed by decree. The rich greedy transnational hoteliers (one such is American- Richard Evanson of Turtle Island Resort) had funded the 2006 coup of Bainimarama (Richard Evanson's confession in August 2006; is common knowledge within local hotels' staff who are mostly landowners) and have been rewarded with our traditional fishing grounds so their tourists can be free to fish, snorkel, scuba dive, deep-sea-fishing without the rich hoteliers paying the pittance called 'good-will' payments to us the landowners. But these hoteliers pay taxes to the government for sitting on our land, our beaches, our islands in the sun, spaces we have had to vacate to allow for them to build their resorts. And we can't go to court because no legal avenue is open to us to do so in the law books of Fiji. Everything works for the government and the rich foreigners but not for us, the native Fijian race. Therefore the military's barrel of the gun is pointed our way because the military too takes its share of the loot. The Fiji military has highly compromised itself and we the landowners of Fiji have become a threat to their financial security. Conditions of life in Fiji for me and my race is intolerable that many, even very young people just drop and die.

    9. By decree the regime has set up the land bank facility. By another decree, PM Bainimarama has been given unfettered powers to take any parcel of vacant land he sees fit and transfers it to the land bank for survey, title and for a 99 year lease with absolutely no legal recourse open to the land owning tribe for the duration of the entire 99 years of lease. I and my race of people are living under conditions of life so intolerable that we are dying on the inside and yet expected to smile to the outside world. We are a people under siege.

    10. We cannot hold meetings to discuss what is happening to us because we fear the presence of members of the 'killing squad' who have a way of just turning up any where any time. Every minute aspect of our everyday lives is under the radar of this illegal-thug regime. We are only okay if we zip our mouths and die silently, but if we hold a political view or say anything about the 17 Decrees or the 2013 Constitution or mention the 'sun-set-clause' thesis of Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, then we're in deep trouble and trouble will be visited upon us. We are a people under siege and under conditions of life so intolerable that many in our group just drop dead.

    11. Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum had written his thesis- 'Cultural Autonomy, Its Implications for the nation state, The Fijian Experience,' (attached) expressly intended to 'sun-set-clause' cultural autonomy in Fiji for the native Fijian race, and for the ultimate creation and empowerment of the nation state. That thesis is the equivalent of a death warrant served on us the native race of Fiji. Our culture, our race and our faith have been expressly singled out for extermination and annihilation so as to give life and empowerment to the nation state and its new group of elites. Khaiyum's law professor who fully endorsed the thesis was Mr Christopher Pryde, a New Zealand man, who is currently Fiji's Director of Public Prosecutions. We, the Fijian native race are under intense siege and conditions of life that are leading many of us to self harm and premature deaths.

    12. I have joined the recently formed Fiji Native Government in Exile, domiciled in Sydney, Australia, which has over 400 native Fijian members. Our purpose is self-determination. Our objective is to support, promote and fund all efforts of self-determination in the 14 provinces of Fiji. We have each paid $50 to become a member. Fiji Native Government in Exile was proclaimed on 26 January 2016 in Canberra in a solidarity march with the Aborigines from Garema place to the Australian Parliament. About 100 of our members from around Australia travelled to Canberra for the occasion. The office at 18 Dudley St, Punchbowl NSW 2196 was opened on 16 November 2015 to cater for the needs of the members, especially in the dissemination of vital information and to liaise closely with the 14 provinces in Fiji in particular the chiefs of Nadroga-Navosa and Ra in western Viti Levu, the main island of Fiji, the two breakaway Christian states. As word travels around Australia and the world, more and more of our people have come to register as members of the group. Even lndo-Fijians have come to register as members in support of our cause. Praise God! Because all of us know that in the past 9 years of the thug-rule of Bainimarama and his Muslim cronies conditions of life in Fiji have become so unbearable especially for the target group, which is me and my native Fijian people. When native Fijians who make up over 60% of Fiji's population and who still own over 90% of all lands in Fiji are under intolerable conditions of life, unhappy and under immense duress, suffice to say that the whole of Fiji is bound to be affected negatively in some way, as now seen in the nature of heinous crimes and brutality that have escalated in Fiji in recent years as perpetrators delve into satanic and evil ways to let steam off their chest and lash out at each other in lateral violence. We are a people under intense siege and conditions of life that are so intolerable that many of us are literally dying or no longer care about life.

    13. My dad, Ratu Netava Tagi Roraduri Davis, was a senior corrections officer in the Fiji Prisons (Korovou-Suva jail). When the regime jailed deposed PM Qarase in 2012. My dad treated Qarase with a degree of respect and kindness. My dad was reported to the powers that be and was marginalised and spent time in the police cell, under threat over some insidious allegations that led eventually for him to flee to Australia in order to survive.

    14. While my dad was being hunted down by the regime, he knew to send me and my brother ahead of him to Australia because we were old enough for the security forces and intelligence to be interested in us. My dad knew that if he disappeared from Fiji, the regime would then catch me and my brother and would treat us cruelly as pay back for his disappearance. My mum and younger siblings would be spared because, experience has shown us that it is mostly men and young males who are targeted by the security forces and the intelligence. Me and my brother fled Fiji and came to Sydney where we applied for protection. My brother was the main applicant. Protection has been refused. My brother is with a woman and has gone on to apply for the partnership visa. I was hoping to go under my dad's application for political asylum.

    15. Unfortunately the Department has refused my request and want to send me back to Fiji. I am now on departure ground, an issue that is making my dad very anxious and me too. I am therefore imploring this honourable court to overturn the decision of the Tribunal who want to send me back to Fiji by taking into account all that I've articulated in this submission on the grounds of my application.

    16. I petition this honourable court to re evaluate the definition of 'significant harm' in the light of the grounds I have articulated above. The military and the intelligence have somewhat changed their tactics since the ratification of the imposed and illegal 2013 Constitution on 6 September 2013, the promulgation of the 17 Decrees aimed at dismantling the native Fijian race, and since the September 2014 elections that brought the thug-regime back into power in what appeared to have been a fair and transparent elections but that we all knew was a convoluted and rigged election. This I believe is why they insisted that all the laws had to be in place first before the election of September 2014 which appeared to have given them the landslide victory. But we, the locals know otherwise. One thing we are certain of and that the tactics of the regime has changed. Nowadays no physical harm or torture is warranted to be performed on dissidents. This is so because death is mandated on me and my group, the native Fijian race purely by law in the form of the 17 Decrees that target the death of the native Fijian race, and the imposed and illegal 2013 con Constitution which enshrines 'equal citizenry' which is the intensive and enforced mainstreaming of the native Fijian race into the dominant culture of the day invented by A-G Khaiyum in his 'sun-set-clause' thesis. The 2013 Constitution also enshrines the Chapter 10 immunity for all coup-makers, thieves and murderers to make all of them beyond the reach of the law (attached).

    17. For all of the above and more which I'm sure will come to light when the attachments are read through and digested, I am imploring this honourable court to consider my appeal according to the Refugees Convention 1951, the 1967 Protocol and the complimentary ground subsequently introduced in Australian domest law. As Australia is one of 145 contracting states to the Convention, I hereby seek the protection of Australia as a political refugee. As a Fijian citizen, native Fijian by race and Christian by faith, holding strong political views regarding the current thug-regime of Bainimarama and his Muslim cronies, it would be foolish of me to think that I can engage the protection of my country or that it would be extended to me naturally. The military and the security forces, also the intelligence have vowed their highest allegiance to the 2013 Constitution and all the decrees promulgated by the Muslim A-G Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum since coming into power in 2006.

    18. I implore this honourable court to consider that the definition of 'significant harm' is to be elevated to the level where evaluation of the 17 Decrees promulgated by the regime since 2006 in which I and my group have been targeted and evaluation of the imposed and illegal 2013 Constitution which enshrines my genocide and that of my group, for it is in these provisions that I and my people have been sold for destruction and slaughter and annihilation. If we had merely been sold as male and female slaves, I would have kept quiet and no need to flee my beloved country Fiji, because no such distress would justify my coming to Australia and disturbing your country, your people and this honourable court.

    19. Evaluation of Fiji's supreme law, the 2013 Constitution (Chapters 1, 10, 11 especially), and evaluation of the 17 Decrees that have singled out only the native Fijian race for dismemberment and extermination, and current state practices where the military, security force, intelligence, the police even FICAC are allowed to breach all the laws of Fiji and yet are immune through Chapter 10 of the same 2013 Constitution that binds all other citizens of Fiji, not the government, despite the fact these laws appear in the statute books, only the citizens are bound by them, not the state. Hence to equate 'significant harm' to mere physical and temporary wounding, maiming and defacing of the body of an individual like me, if I was to be sent back to Fiji, in my humble opinion, greatly trivialises the immensity and colossal weight of the genocide of an entire group, the native Fijian race of people, of which I am a member.

    20. Whilst I am grateful to this host nation Australia for its fair-go ethos and the cosmopolitan matrix of Sydney itself, my burden for my people and country continues to haunt me. Membership in the group- Fiji Native Government in Exile domiciled in Sydney, Australia has given me meaning in life and it is where my efforts combined with 400 others (and more coming to join each day}, will effectively bring Fiji back to where it should be, a deeply devoted and committed Christian people and country, poor yet rich in spirit, and accommodating, hospitable and welcoming to all others in the region and beyond.

    21. For all the grounds which I have articulated in this rather lengthy submission I now conclude by making my application for grant of political asylum in Australia.

1. I accept the submissions of the solicitor for the first respondent that none of the matters identified in paras.1 to 21 identify any arguable question of jurisdictional error.  Given that the applicant also wished to rely upon the document handed up to the Court today, the content of that application headed Grounds for Application for Extension of Time is as follows. 

   GROUNDS FOR APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

   IN THE AMENDED APLICATION FOR MR MAXIMILLIAN PAUL PA DAVIS

   I wish to inform this honourable court that I, the applicant, was still under 18 years of age and attending High School when I applied for protection with my older brother- Mr Lasarusa Roraduri Davis. I did not tum 18 till 2 September 2015, and was expecting my father, Ratu Netava Roraduri Davis to arrive from Fiji, but whose travels were blocked by the military or security forces and did not arrive in Australia till 19 October 2015. After my brother moved-in with his girl friend, I waited for my dad and family to arrive. My dad told me to wait for them to arrive, and because I was still under 18, dad thought that I could come under the family's application, that is with him as the main applicant.

   But my dad was thrown into jail in about 5th August or 11th August 2015, together with the high profile Ra sedition case, and locked up in the Lautoka police station overnight. The reason being his car, which was borrowed by our relative from Perth who was in August 2015 visiting family in the Ra province, was alleged to have been used by the Ra group who were alleged to have been doing paramilitary training in or around the Rabulu village, in the Ra province. After his cell experience, my dad was black listed and couldn't travel out of the Fiji. Meanwhile I was waiting for him, because he had told me that he and I could probably apply for protection together when he arrived, particularly when I was still under 18. So without any lawyer to advise me, I attended High School and waited for my dad. My dad was under surveillance and he had to be at work every day, even when sick, because otherwise, the military would pick him up. Finally he thought to petition the Prison institution where he worked to give him leave to do some running repairs to our house or some reasoning to that effect. The day after he got his leave, he flew to Australia. But that was 19 October 2015, and I turned 18 on 2 September, 2015. After he arrived, we waited for my mum and 2 younger siblings to arrive, but the military had black listed them, and tried as they might to get Visa to come to Australia, the Australian Immigration in Suva, refused them visa.

   Finally my dad applied for Protection in January 2016, but because I'd been through the Tribunal already, I was not allowed to go under my dad's application for protection when he lodged his papers in January this year. Now I am 18 but I haven't got a clue what to do. So I am totally depending on the mercy of this honourable court to give me leave, to apply for political refugee protection in Australia, and I want to hand up more documents to substantiate the legitimacy of my cause.

   I therefore pray this honourable court to grant me extension of time because it has provided me the opportunity to gather more evidence with which to substantiate my claim for political refugee status pursuant to the Refugees Convention 1951, Protocol 1967 and the hard-to-prove narrow test of the complimentary ground subsequently introduced in 2008.

   I beg this honourable court that such an extension of time has worked to better serve my case since more evidence has come to light to substantiate major breaches of human rights in Fiji, my country of nationality. Also, the breakdown of law and order which has led to no rule of law in Fiji, and our inability as citizens to seek remedy for our grievances in the court system in Fiji due to the highly compromised and corrupt Fiji judiciary, undermined by the current administration, especially by the Muslim Attorney General and Minister for everything in Fiji, Mr Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, as evidenced in the annexures to my amended grounds for application, which I now hand-up.

   I reiterate that I have had no legal representative and that I am still only 18 years of age.

   I am, Maximillian Paul PA Davis, make this declaration based on my own knowledge of the circumstance of the matter, except for where I state that I am informed of some matter in which case I verily believe the same to be true

2. Nothing in the document headed Grounds for Application for Extension of Time identifies any arguable jurisdictional error. 

3. In relation to the document headed “Grounds for Application for Extension of Time” the Court sought to explore with the applicant whether there was any other amended grounds of application that the applicant wished to hand up.  The applicant identified that there was a bundle of material related to current conditions in Fiji.  The applicant confirmed that none of the material in that bundle were before the Tribunal.  The applicant confirmed that he wanted to rely upon that material in relation to his claims. 

4. The first respondent objected to the material.  The Court refused the tender of the material on the grounds that the material was not relevant to the application before this Court.  The merits of the application in respect of the protection visa were for the Tribunal to determine.  This Court does not have power to make fresh findings of fact in relation to the applicant’s claims and fears.  The applicant then from the bar table said he wanted an extension of time.  The Court sought to clarify whether the applicant was seeking an adjournment. 

5. The applicant indicated that he was.  The Court sought to clarify the purpose of an adjournment and the applicant indicated it was so that he could put the documentation in order.  The Court asked the applicant to identify whether this was documentation going to his claims and the applicant indicated that it was.  The Court indicated that that was not material that the Court could receive as the Court is not in a position to make fresh findings of fact.  The application for an adjournment was opposed by the solicitor for the first respondent.  No earlier notice for an adjournment had been given by the applicant to the solicitor for the first respondent. 

6. I am satisfied that there would have been no utility in granting the applicant an adjournment. I am satisfied that an adjournment would only unnecessarily increase the costs to the parties and utilise limited Court time.  Nothing said by the applicant identified any proper basis in accordance with the interests of the administration of justice that warranted an adjournment.  Neither the grounds identified in the application or the further grounds for extension of time identify any matter of content that reflects an arguable jurisdictional error.  The content of that material is in substance to advance or repeat the applicant’s claims going to the merits of the matter. 

7. This Court does not have jurisdiction to revisit the merits. Nothing said by the applicant from the bar table identified any arguable jurisdictional error. In light of the above findings I am not satisfied that this is an appropriate case in which to extend time in the interests of the administration of justice under s.477 of the Migration Act 1958. I have taken into account the principles and caution in Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia (2010) 241 CLR 118 at [24]-[25] and [59]-[60]. I am clearly satisfied that the application and further proposed grounds fail to identify any arguable jurisdictional error. I am satisfied that the interests of the administration of justice do not warrant an extension of time in the present case.

8. The application for an extension of time under s.477 of the Migration Act 1958 is dismissed.

I certify that the preceding twenty-one (21) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Street

Date: 26 July 2016