CAS15 v Minister for Immigration

[2016] FCCA 197

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CAS15 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2016] FCCA 197

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Migration & Refugees Division) – no appearance by or on behalf of the applicant – application dismissed for want of appearance pursuant to r.13.03C(1)(c).

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.476

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001, r.13.03C(1)(c)

Applicant: CAS15

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 2726 of 2015

Judgment of: Judge Street

Hearing date: 5 February 2016

Date of Last Submission: 5 February 2016

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 5 February 2016

REPRESENTATION

No appearance by or on behalf of the Applicant

Solicitors for the Respondents: Mr R White
Mills Oakley Lawyers

ORDERS

1. The application is dismissed pursuant to r.13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001.

2. The Applicant pay the costs of the First Respondent fixed in the amount of $3416.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 2726 of 2015

CAS15

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application within the Court’s jurisdiction under s.476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) for a Constitutional writ in respect of a decision of the Tribunal made on 8 September 2015 affirming the decision of a delegate not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

2. On 12 November 2015 the registrar of the Court fixed the matter for hearing today at 9.30 am.  It is now past 11.15 am and the applicant has failed to appear.  No explanation has been given to the first respondent for the applicant’s absence.  The first respondent has tendered a letter, dated 29 January 2016 which was sent to an address provided by the applicant on 12 November 2015 as his amended address.  That letter notified the applicant of the hearing date and also foreshadowed moving to have the application dismissed if the applicant failed to appear.

3. The first respondent moves under r.13.03C(1)(c) for the application to be dismissed. I am satisfied that the applicant was aware of the hearing date. I am satisfied that this is an appropriate case in which to exercise the court’s powers under r.13.03C(1)(c) and that the application should be dismissed.

4. The application is dismissed under r.13.03C(1)(c) for the purpose of the Court rules.

I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Street

Associate: 

Date:  8 February 2016