BZADA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2013]FCA 1062
Citation:
BZADA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Refugee Review Tribunal [2013] FCA 1062
Parties:
BZADA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
File number:
QUD 331 of 2013
Judge:
RANGIAH J
Date of judgment:
12 September 2013
Catchwords:
MIGRATION – protection visa – invitation to attend hearing – failure to attend hearing before RRT – application for extension of time to seek leave to appeal – application for leave to appeal
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent
JUDGE:
RANGIAH J
DATE OF ORDER:
12 SEPTEMBER 2013
WHERE MADE:
BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The name of the first respondent be amended to the Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship.
2.The application for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal and the application for leave to appeal be dismissed.
3.The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs to be assessed if not agreed.
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 331 of 2013
BETWEEN:
BZADA Applicant
AND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent
JUDGE:
RANGIAH J
DATE:
12 SEPTEMBER 2013
PLACE:
BRISBANE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The applicant filed an application in the Federal Circuit Court on 4 October 2012 seeking constitutional writs in respect of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) made on 29 August 2012. The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent made on 11 May 2012 to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection (Class XA) visa.
The applicant failed to appear at the final hearing before the Federal Circuit Court on 28 March 2013. Accordingly, Judge Jarrett made orders dismissing the application with costs. On 13 May 2013, his Honour dismissed an application filed by the applicant seeking to set aside the orders of 28 March 2013: BZADA v Minister for Immigrationand Citizenship & Anor[2013]…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading BZADA v MIC and RRT
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
BZADA v MIC and RRT [2013] FCA 1062
Case
[2013] FCA 1062
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter before the court involved the applicant, BZADA, who sought a protection visa. The first respondent, initially identified as RRT, was subsequently amended to the Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship. The dispute centred on the applicant's failure to attend a hearing before the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT), as well as subsequent applications for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal and leave to appeal the RRT's decision.
The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether the applicant's failure to attend the RRT hearing was excusable and whether the application for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal was valid. The court had to consider the procedural fairness and whether there were any exceptional circumstances that justified extending the time limit for the appeal.
The court found that the applicant's failure to attend the RRT hearing was not excusable, as there was no compelling evidence presented to justify the absence. The court further held that the application for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal was invalid as it was not made within the required timeframe and there were no exceptional circumstances to warrant an extension. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was also dismissed. The court ordered that the name of the first respondent be amended, and that both applications be dismissed. The applicant was also ordered to pay the first respondent's costs, to be assessed if not agreed.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The name of the first respondent be amended to the Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship.
2. The application for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal and the application for leave to appeal be dismissed.
3. The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs to be assessed if not agreed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.