BTR15 v Minister for Immigration

[2015] FCCA 3370

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BTR15 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2015] FCCA 3370

Catchwords:

MIGRATION – Review of Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision – application fails to establish jurisdictional error –application dismissed pursuant to r.13.03C(1)(c) of Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

Applicant: BTR15

First Respondent:

Second Respondent

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Number: BRG 789 of 2015

Judgment of: Judge Vasta

Hearing date: 16 November 2015

Date of Last Submission: 16 November 2015

Delivered at: Brisbane

Delivered on: 16 November 2015

REPRESENTATION

There being no appearance by or on behalf of the Applicant

Solicitors for the Respondent: Clayton Utz

ORDERS

1. Pursuant to r.13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 the application filed on 2 September 2015 be dismissed.

2. The Applicant pay the First Respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application fixed in the sum of $1,367.00.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT BRISBANE

BRG 789 of 2015

BTR15

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Ex Tempore)

1. On 10 August 2015, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed a decision not to grant this Applicant a visa.  The Tribunal seems not to have believed his claims at all and ended up being satisfied that he did not meet the criteria of the Refugee Convention set out in s.36(2)(a) and the complementary protection criteria in s.36(2)(aa).

2. The Applicant filed an application in this Court on 2 September 2015 seeking a review of that decision with the two following grounds:

   “(1)The applicant believes the decision made by the first respondent was incorrect.

   (2)The applicant still faces threat from the money lenders and family if applicant returns without job or certificate.”

3. Without going into the details, neither of those two grounds of application illustrate that there has been any jurisdictional error.  It seems from the grounds that have been now filed, that this is simply an application for a merits review.

4. As has been said in many decisions of this Court, a merits review is not a matter that can be countenanced by this Court, because a merits review does not involve a jurisdictional error; that being the case, it was a matter that was not likely to be successful.

5. As I say, the Applicant filed the application on 2 September 2015 and was given today as the first return date.  He has not appeared when he was supposed to at 9.30 am.  It is now 10.05 am and his name has been called again.  Having not answered those calls and with the paucity of merit in the application, it is my view that the matter ought be summarily dismissed. 

6. I will act pursuant to r.13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 and dismiss the matter in default, but it would seem to me, even if the Applicant were able to come back, he would find it extremely difficult, on the grounds he has presented, convincing any Court that he ought have leave to recommence the proceedings. 

7. I order that the application is dismissed and that the applicant pay the costs of the first respondent fixed in the sum of $1,367.00

I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Vasta

Date:  16 December 2015