CFS15 v Minister for Immigration

[2016] FCCA 1766

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CFS15 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2016] FCCA 1766

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Application for review of decision of Tribunal – no appearance by the applicant – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.476

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.13.03

Applicant: CFS15

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 2914 of 2015

Judgment of: Judge Nicholls

Hearing date: 14 June 2016

Date of Last Submission: 14 June 2016

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 14 June 2016

REPRESENTATION

Applicant: No Appearance

Solicitors for the Respondents: Ms B Rayment of Mills Oakley

ORDERS

1. The application made on 27 October 2015 is dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth).

2. The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs set in the amount of $3,416.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 2914 of 2015

CFS15

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Ex Tempore; Revised from Transcript)

1. I have before me today an application made pursuant to s.476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) on 27 October 2015, seeking review of the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal made on 1 October 2015, which affirmed the decision of the Minister’s delegate to refuse a protection visa to the applicant.

2. When the matter was called today, there was no appearance by the applicant or on behalf of the applicant. I adjourned and the matter was again called 15 minutes later. There remained no appearance by or on behalf of the applicant. The Minister made an application pursuant to r.13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) (“the FCC Rules”) that the substantive application be dismissed for non-appearance.

3. The applicant has appeared twice before a Registrar the Court in person. The first occasion, 3 December 2015, and subsequently on 31 March 2016. On that date, the matter was set down for hearing today pursuant to Part 44 of the FCC Rules.

4. I am not aware of any communication from the applicant to the Court’s Registry, notifying of any difficulty in attending today, nor is there any application for an adjournment of the hearing today before the Court. The Minister has tendered a letter addressed to the applicant sent to the address for service reminding him of the Court event today and of the time, date and place and which also put the applicant on notice that if he did not appear, that the respondent may indeed make the application that has now been made (“RE1”).

5. I am satisfied that, given the applicant’s attendance personally before the Registrar, assisted by an interpreter in the relevant language and satisfied on the basis of the RE1 that the applicant was aware of the hearing before the Court today and would could occur if did not attend.

6. In all, I am satisfied the applicant had reasonable notice of the Court event today and he has not attended.  That attendance remains unexplained and nor is there any other application before the Court that would argue against making the order that the Minister seeks.  I will make that order.

I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Nicholls

Date: 13 July 2016