Azz20 v Minister for Immigration

[2020] FCCA 3399

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AZZ20 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2020] FCCA 3399

Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for adjournment –– where no evidence has been adduced as to actual steps taken by the applicant to obtain legal representation – where substantive application lacked merit –– where adjournment not warranted in the interests of the administration of justice – application for adjournment dismissed.

Applicant: AZZ20

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Second Respondent: IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY

File Number: SYG 573 of 2020

Judgment of: Judge Street

Hearing date: 14 December 2020

Date of Last Submission: 14 December 2020

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 14 December 2020

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant appeared in person via Microsoft Teams

Solicitors for the First Respondent: Ms C Hillary, Australian Government Solicitor via Microsoft Teams

ORDERS

1. The applicant’s application in a case for an adjournment is dismissed.

DATE OF ORDER: 14 December 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 573 of 2020

AZZ20

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. These proceedings were commenced on 9 March 2020 seeking a Constitutional writ in respect of a decision of the Immigration Assessment Authority (“the Authority”) in respect of a decision dated 4 February 2020. 

2. The applicant applied for a Safe Haven Enterprise Visa on 20 February 2017.  A delegate of the first respondent (“the Delegate”) refused to grant him the visa on 6 December 2019.

3. On 9 April 2020 this Court made orders fixing the matter for hearing today. The orders included an opportunity for the applicant to file an amended application, affidavit evidence and submissions. No such documents have been filed. 

4. In support of the application for an adjournment, the applicant refers to COVID-19 and says he has had difficulty obtaining legal representation. No evidence has been adduced as to actual steps taken by the applicant to obtain legal representation. 

5. The applicant made reference to the price of legal representation being a problem. The Court does not regard the applicant’s explanation as to the absence of legal representation as satisfactory.

6. The Court is not satisfied that granting an adjournment would be of any utility in the applicant obtaining legal representation.

7. The adjournment was opposed by the first respondent.

8. The Court has also taken into account the want of merit in the substantive application.

9. Accordingly, the Court is not satisfied that an adjournment is warranted in the interests of the administration of justice. 

I certify that the preceding nine (9) paragraphs are a true copy of the transcript of the published oral reasons for judgment of Judge Street delivered in open Court on 14 December 2020 and the parties were sent a sealed copy of the Court’s orders.

Associate: 

Date: 22 February 2021