Chow v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

[2015] FCCA 470

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CHOW v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION & ANOR [2015] FCCA 470

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Migration Review Tribunal.

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Whether scheduled hearing should be adjourned to enable applicant to seek legal advice – application refused.

Legislation:

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) r.44.12

Re Commonwealth of Australia;  Ex Parte Marks  [2000] HCA 67; (2000) 177 ALR 491

Applicant: WAI MEI CHOW

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 3507 of 2014

Judgment of: Judge Emmett

Hearing date: 20 February 2015

Date of Last Submission: 20 February 2015

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 20 February 2015

REPRESENTATION

The applicant appeared in person with the assistance of an interpreter

Solicitors for the Respondents: Ms Michelle Stone (DLA Piper)

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 3507 of 2014

WAI MEI CHOW

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

EX TEMPORE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant seeks an adjournment of today’s scheduled hearing on the basis that she wishes to seek legal advice. At the heart of the applicant’s request appears to be a contention that she received a copy of relevant documents, identified as the Court Book and filed on 19 February 2015, only yesterday and received the first respondent’s submissions only yesterday.

2. The applicant appeared at a directions hearing before a registrar of this Court on 12 February 2015. On that occasion the applicant was given leave to file an amended application, further evidence by way of affidavit and submissions in support of her application by 18 February 2015.

3. The applicant was also provided with the contact details of legal services providers and translating and interpreting services in documents headed in her own language. The matter was set down for a hearing today pursuant to r.44.12 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), a copy of which was given to the applicant, on the basis that the grounds of the application do not raise an arguable case.

4. The applicant was unrepresented before the Court this morning, although had the assistance of a Cantonese interpreter.

5. The applicant’s application for judicial review, filed on 17 December 2014, stated the ground of review as follows:

   “1. I have been in genuine relationship with my partner therefore MRT made error to dismiss my application for review.”

6. The ground of the application does not identify any error capable of review by this Court.

7. I asked the applicant if she had approached any lawyer since she had filed that application, or since she had last appeared before the Court on 12 February 2014. The applicant said she was helped by a friend in a charity, which I understand to be an answer that she has not approached any lawyer for advice.

8. There was no direction made by the Court at the directions hearing for the first respondent to file a bundle of relevant documents. However, I accept the submission of the solicitor for the first respondent that the documents contained in that bundle are all documents of which the applicant has knowledge. Furthermore, the bundle of relevant documents is filed by the first respondent largely in an effort to assist the Court in placing before it the documents that may be relevant to the proceeding.

9. It is a bundle that is usually also of assistance to applicants, because applicants often do not bring to Court the documents that may be relevant to their application, including their original visa application and relevant correspondence, both with the department and the Migration Review Tribunal (“the MRT”).

10. The submissions of the first respondent were directed to be filed by 19 February, which was done. The submissions have been read to the applicant this morning. The submissions simply endeavour to respond to the complaints made by the applicant as the first respondent best understands them to be.

11. In the case before this Court, as stated above, the complaint of the applicant does not appear to identify any error capable of review by this Court. It appears to be no more than a disagreement with the findings and conclusions of the MRT. I have explained to the applicant the limited role of the Court in reviewing decisions of the MRT.

12. The applicant has not raised any other complaints this morning that would justify an adjournment of the hearing. The applicant has had ample time to seek legal advice, should she have chosen to do so, as well as the information to assist her to seek legal advice, and she has taken no step to seek any such legal advice.

13. There is a significant public interest in the finality of administrative decisions (see: Re Commonwealth of Australia;  Ex Parte Marks  [2000] HCA 67; (2000) 177 ALR 491).

14. In balancing the overall interests of justice, the applicant’s request for an adjournment this morning is refused.

I certify that the preceding fourteen (14) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Emmett

Associate:

Date:     4 March 2014