Chang v Minister for Immigration

[2013] FCCA 677

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CHANG v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2013] FCCA 677

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – No appearance.

Applicant: HOO WON CHANG

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent: MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 3109 of 2012

Judgment of: Judge Raphael

Hearing date: 20 June 2013

Date of Last Submission: 20 June 2013

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 20 June 2013

REPRESENTATION

For the Applicant: No appearance

Solicitors for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore

ORDERS

1. Application dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth).

2. Applicant to pay the first respondent’s costs assessed in the sum of $1,331.00.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT SYDNEY

SYG 3109 of 2012

HOO WON CHANG

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This matter is an application for review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal in relation to an application for a spouse visa which was filed on 24 December 2012.  In the intervening period the partner/nominator has withdrawn her nomination.  When the matter came before the Tribunal it was found that the sponsoring partner had withdrawn her sponsorship prior to the decision and that there were no other grounds for granting a visa. 

2. The applicant would have been aware from the date placed upon the application that the matter was to be listed for directions today. The applicant was originally represented by a firm of lawyers but they have withdrawn as and from 14 March 2013. On that date they again notified the applicant of today’s hearing date. The applicant was not in attendance at the court at 9.30am and was still not in attendance when his name was called outside at 10.15am. In those circumstances I propose to dismiss the matter pursuant to Part 13 Rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), and order that the applicant pay the first respondent’s costs assessed in the sum of $1,331.00.

I certify that the preceding two (2) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Raphael

Associate: 

Date:  27 June 2013