BZACO v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Case [2013] FCA 1456


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BZACO v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2013] FCA 1456

Citation: BZACO v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2013] FCA 1456
Appeal from: BZACO v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2012] FMCA 1029
Parties: BZACO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
File number(s): QUD 641 of 2012
Judges: GREENWOOD J
Date of judgment: 7 March 2013
Catchwords: MIGRATION – dismissal of an appeal for non‑appearance by the appellant
Date of hearing: 7 March 2013
Date of last submissions: 26 February 2013
Place: Brisbane
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 7
Counsel for the Appellant: No appearance
Solicitor for the Respondents: Ms G O’Connor, Clayton Utz Lawyers

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

QUD 641 of 2012

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:

BZACO
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

GREENWOOD J

DATE OF ORDER:

7 MARCH 2013

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal is dismissed by reason of the appellant’s failure to appear at the hearing of the appeal. 

2.The appellant pay the costs of the first respondent of and incidental to the appeal.   

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


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

QUD 641 of 2012

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:

BZACO
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

GREENWOOD J

DATE:

7 MARCH 2013

PLACE:

BRISBANE

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an appeal which has been set down for hearing today.  The matter was listed for hearing on 7 March 2013 at 10.15am.  The appellant has not appeared and had not appeared by 10.15am.  The Court allowed a further 15 minutes to elapse before listing or opening the Court for the hearing of the appeal. 

  2. Ultimately the matter was called on for hearing at 10.37am.  The appellant was called outside the Court and there has been no appearance.  The first respondent to the proceedings seeks an order that the appeal be dismissed by reason of the appellant’s failure to appear to prosecute the appeal. 

  3. The appellant was given notice on 11 December 2012 of the listing of the matter to be heard on the nominated date.  That notification letter was dated 11 December 2012. 

  4. Apart from that, a further letter was written by the Federal Court of Australia to the appellant on 15 January 2013 reminding the appellant of the listing of the hearing of the appeal for 7 March 2013 at 10.15 am. 

  5. The appellant has failed to appear today.  An interpreter who has been retained to provide assistance to the appellant is in Court today.  However, the appellant has not appeared. 

  6. I dismiss the appeal by reason of the appellant’s failure to appear to prosecute the appeal. 

  7. I order the appellant to pay the costs of the first respondent of and incidental to the appeal. 

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

Associate:

Dated:       7 March 2012

Details
AGLC
BZACO v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2013] FCA 1456
Case
[2013] FCA 1456
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, BZACO, the appellant, sought to appeal against a decision made by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, the first respondent, which resulted in the cancellation of their visa. The crux of the matter was whether the visa cancellation was justified and whether the appellant had valid grounds to appeal the decision.

The central legal issues revolved around the appellant's non-appearance at the scheduled hearing and whether the court could proceed with the merits of the appeal in the absence of the appellant. Additionally, the court had to consider the procedural fairness of the decision-making process undertaken by the Minister and whether there were any errors in law that warranted the intervention of the court.

The court found that the appellant's failure to appear at the hearing of the appeal was a significant procedural default. In light of this, the court held that it was not appropriate to address the merits of the appeal without the appellant present. The court emphasised the importance of adherence to procedural requirements in migration matters, particularly in cases involving the cancellation of a visa. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's non-appearance and ordered the appellant to pay the costs of the first respondent of and incidental to the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed by reason of the appellant’s failure to appear at the hearing of the appeal.

2. The appellant pay the costs of the first respondent of and incidental to the appeal.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.