AZAEO v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

[2015] FCA 179

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AZAEO v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 179

Citation:	AZAEO v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 179
Appeal from:	Application for extension of time: AZAEO v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2014] FCCA 2458
Parties:	AZAEO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
File number:	SAD 259 of 2014
Judge:	ALLSOP CJ
Date of judgment:	3 March 2015
Legislation:	Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 91X Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) Sch 3
Date of hearing:	3 March 2014
Place:	Adelaide
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	7
Counsel for the Applicant:	The applicant did not appear
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Mr P d’Assumpcao of the Australian Government Solicitor
Counsel for the Second Respondent:	The second respondent submitted save as to costs

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	SAD 259 of 2014

BETWEEN:

AZAEO
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	ALLSOP CJ
DATE OF ORDER:	3 MARCH 2015
WHERE MADE:	ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for extension of time be dismissed with costs identified in the sum of $1,756.00.

2.The first respondent notify the applicant by letter of the terms of these orders and these reasons by including a copy thereof when they are available in settled form from the Chief Justice’s Associate.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	SAD 259 of 2014

BETWEEN:

AZAEO
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	ALLSOP CJ
DATE:	3 MARCH 2015
PLACE:	ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for an extension of time in which to file a notice of appeal from the orders of the learned Federal Circuit Court judge made on 22 September 2014.  The learned Federal Circuit Court judge dismissed the application before him by reason of the absence of a party, though he looked at the underlying merits of the matter.  The underlying matter was application decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal affirming a decision of a delegate of the Minister to reject an application for a protection visa. 

2. The matter was listed today in the ordinary course of the appeal process, including notification to the parties. The applicant has not appeared. His pseudonym has been called three times outside. Because of s 91X of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), I have not had his real name called outside. In the absence of his attendance, the Minister requests that I dismiss the matter for want of prosecution. I am prepared to do so.

3. I have also examined the reasons of the learned Federal Circuit Court judge.  They do not appear, on their face, to reveal any error. 

4. The applicant, not being present today, will have under the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (the Rules), a right to seek to set aside the orders that I am about to make.  It should be clear, however, that in any such application (which should be made promptly), the applicant will need to explain:  (1) why he did not appear before the Federal Circuit Court;  (2) why he did not appear before this Court;  and (3) that there is some utility in any application and appeal by reference to appropriate submissions identifying jurisdictional error in the Refugee Review Tribunal’s decision.  I will direct that the first respondent serve upon the applicant a copy of the terms of these orders and my reasons when they are available in settled form. 

5. The Minister also asks for a lump sum costs order in the sum of $1,756.00, being the fee for an application of this kind under Schedule 3 of the Rules. Given the history of the matter, it is appropriate that that order be made.

6. The application for an extension of time was for the filing of a notice of appeal.  Strictly speaking, leave to appeal would be required, but I will treat the application as one for an application for filing and serving an application for leave to appeal, including a draft notice of appeal.

7. The orders of the Court are that: 

   (1)The application for extension of time be dismissed with costs identified in the sum $1,756.00. 

   (2)The first respondent notify the applicant by letter of the terms of these orders and these reasons by including a copy thereof when they are available in settled form from the Chief Justice’s Associate.

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

Associate:

Dated:       6 March 2015