BCG16 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

Case [2020] FCA 184


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BCG16 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 184

Appeal from: BCG16 v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2019] FCCA 2019
File number: WAD 409 of 2019
Judge: ABRAHAM J
Date of judgment: 25 February 2020
Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)

Date of hearing: 20 February 2020
Registry: Western Australia
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Category: No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 9
Counsel for the Appellant: The appellant did not appear
Counsel for the First Respondent: C I Taggart
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
Counsel for the Second Respondent: The second respondent filed a submitting notice save as to costs

ORDERS

WAD 409 of 2019
BETWEEN:

BCG16

Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE:

ABRAHAM J

DATE OF ORDER:

25 FEBRUARY 2020

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal is dismissed.

2.The appellant is to pay the costs of the first respondent as agreed or taxed.

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


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

ABRAHAM J:

  1. The appellant is a national of Sri Lanka who arrived in Australia on 30 July 2012 as an unauthorised maritime arrival. On 20 December 2012 the appellant applied for a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), which the delegate refused on 16 April 2014. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision, and the Federal Circuit Court dismissed an application for judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision. This is an appeal from that decision.

  2. The appellant was represented in the Court below, although he filed the appeal notice without the assistance of legal representation. He alleged only one ground of appeal:

    [t]he primary judge didn’t adequately examine the evident [evidence] that was placed there by didn’t exercise the Courts proper jurisdiction.

  3. The ground of appeal is no more than a bare assertion, with no particulars to this ground provided. Nor, despite the orders as to the provision of written submissions, was any submission filed by the appellant.

  4. When the matter was called on for hearing at the time allocated, the appellant failed to appear.

  5. The respondent informed the Court that prior to the matter being called on for hearing the Court Officer had made two attempts to contact the appellant by telephone, using the mobile number provided by him in the notice of appeal, however the calls proceeded to voicemail.

  6. The appellant was notified by the Court of the date of this hearing. Further, on 30 January 2020 the respondent also sent a letter to the appellant by express post confirming the matter was listed for hearing at 2:15pm on 20 February 2020, and enclosing a sealed copy of the appeal book. The letter reminded the appellant that he was required to file and serve a written outline of submissions in support of the appeal by 6 February 2020.

  7. I am satisfied that the appellant has had proper notice of the hearing date.

  8. In those circumstances, the respondent applied for the appeal to be dismissed pursuant to r 33.33 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) on the basis that he had failed to attend at the time the matter was listed for hearing. However, given this is a hearing under Part 36, being an appeal in the Court’s appellate jurisdiction from a decision of the Federal Circuit Court, the appropriate rule is 36.75 which is relevantly in the same terms. The appropriate course is to dismiss the appeal.

    Conclusion

  9. The appeal is dismissed.

I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Abraham.

Associate:

Dated:       25 February 2020

Details
AGLC
BCG16 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 184
Case
[2020] FCA 184
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

BCG16, an individual, appealed a decision of the Federal Circuit Court to the Federal Court against the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. The appeal arose from a decision concerning the appellant's application for a visa. The Federal Court was required to determine whether the appeal should proceed, given the appellant's failure to attend the hearing. The court considered the relevant rules of court, specifically rule 36.75, which governs appeals in the Court's appellate jurisdiction from the Federal Circuit Court.

The court noted that the appeal was listed under Part 36 of the Federal Court Rules, which deals with appeals from the Federal Circuit Court. Rule 36.75 provides that the Court may dismiss an appeal if the appellant fails to attend the hearing. The court found that the appellant had not attended the hearing, and that the respondent had applied for the appeal to be dismissed. Given the appellant's absence, the court considered it appropriate to dismiss the appeal.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal and ordered that the appellant pay the costs of the first respondent as agreed or taxed. The court noted that the entry of orders was governed by Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules. The court did not make any further orders or findings beyond those stated in the decision.

In summary, the Federal Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, given the appellant's failure to attend the hearing. The court ordered the appellant to pay the costs of the first respondent as agreed or taxed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The appellant is to pay the costs of the first respondent as agreed or taxed.

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

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

In those circumstances, the respondent applied for the appeal to be dismissed pursuant to r 33.33 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) on the basis that he had failed to attend at the time the matter was listed for hearing. However, given this is a hearing under Part 36, being an appeal in the Court’s appellate jurisdiction from a decision of the Federal Circuit Court, the appropriate rule is 36.75 which is relevantly in the same terms. The appropriate course is to dismiss the appeal. Conclusion The appeal is dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.