BAA20 v Minister for Immigration and Anor

[2020] FCCA 3401

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BAA20 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2020] FCCA 3401

Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for adjournment – where no evidence put on to support claims – where it is not apparent that the applicant would be able to obtain legal representation if an adjournment was granted – where substantive application lacked substantive merit – where adjournment not warranted in the administration of justice – application for adjournment dismissed.

Applicant: BAA20

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

Second Respondent: IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY

File Number: SYG 574 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 Respondents: 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 574 of 2020

BAA20

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for an adjournment in respect of proceedings that were commenced on 9 March 2020, seeking a Constitutional writ in respect of a decision of the Immigration Assessment Authority (“the Authority”) made on 4 February 2020. 

2. The applicant applied for the visa on 7 March 2017.  A delegate of the first respondent (“the Delegate”) refused the grant of the visa on 12 December 2019. 

3. The application for an adjournment has been advanced by reference to COVID-19 and the applicant’s understanding of court process. 

4. On 9 April 2020, this Court made orders giving the applicant an opportunity to file an amended application, affidavit evidence, and submissions. No such documents have been filed.  No evidence has been put on in support of the steps taken by the applicant to obtain legal representation or in relation to any incident involving his leg. 

5. The first respondent opposed the adjournment.

6. The Court is not satisfied that there would be any utility in granting an adjournment in that it is not apparent that the applicant would be able to obtain legal representation if an adjournment was granted. 

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

8. The Court is not satisfied that an adjournment is warranted in the interests of the administration of justice. 

I certify that the preceding eight (8) 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: 23 February 2021