Cid17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

Case [2018] FCA 1680


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CID17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1680

Appeal from: Application for judicial review: CID17 v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2017] FCCA 3154
File number: NSD 1855 of 2018
Judge: YATES J
Date of judgment: 5 November 2018
Catchwords: MIGRATION – application for judicial review of judgment of Federal Circuit Court – failure to appear by applicant – application dismissed
Legislation:

Federal Court Rules 2011, rr 5.22, 5.23

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 39B

Date of hearing: 5 November 2018
Registry: New South Wales
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 5
Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant did not appear
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Ms S Sangha of Mills Oakley
Counsel for the Second Respondent The second respondent filed a submitting notice
Counsel for the Third Respondent The third respondent did not appear
Table of Corrections
16 November 2018

In the appeal from field on the cover page, the words “Application for judicial review:” have been added.

In the catchwords field on the cover page, the catchwords “appeal from judgment of Federal Circuit Court – failure to appear by appellant – appeal dismissed” have been replaced with “application for judicial review of judgment of the Federal Circuit Court – failure to appear by applicant – application dismissed”.


ORDERS

NSD 1855 of 2018
BETWEEN:

CID17

Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION (and others named in the schedule)

First Respondent

JUDGE:

YATES J

DATE OF ORDER:

5 NOVEMBER 2018

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The originating application filed 3 October 2018 be dismissed under r 5.23(1)(b)(i) of the Federal Court Rules 2011, with costs as agreed or assessed.

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from transcript)

YATES J:

  1. The applicant filed an originating application for relief under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) on 3 October 2018. I note that the second respondent has filed a submitting appearance.

  2. The first case management hearing was listed for today.  The matter has been called outside the Court.  There has been no appearance by the applicant.  The matter was stood down in the list to enable other business of the Court to be conducted given the possibility that the applicant might be running late.  That business has been conducted and the matter is now back before me. 

  3. Ms Sangha, the solicitor for the first respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, has applied, under r 5.22 and 5.23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 for an order that the proceeding be dismissed for want of attendance by the applicant.

  4. The only document on file from the applicant is the originating application to which I have referred.  That originating application refers to an accompanying affidavit dated 24 May 2018.  No such affidavit appears on the court file and Ms Sangha informs me that no such affidavit has been served on the first respondent. 

  5. Given that the applicant is in default under r 5.22(c) based on his non-attendance, I propose to accede to the Minister’s application and dismiss the proceeding under r 5.23(1)(b)(i). Orders will be made accordingly.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraph is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Yates.

Associate:

Dated:       6 November 2018


SCHEDULE OF PARTIES

NSD 1855 of 2018

Second Respondent

IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY

Third Respondent

JUDGE STREET IN HIS CAPACITY AS A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Details
AGLC
Cid17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1680
Case
[2018] FCA 1680
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, identified as Cid17, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Federal Circuit Court concerning their immigration status. The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection was the respondent in this matter. The dispute centred on the Federal Circuit Court's decision to declare the applicant's visa invalid due to their failure to appear at a scheduled hearing, which led to the cancellation of their visa. Cid17 argued that the Federal Circuit Court's decision was flawed and sought to overturn it via judicial review in the Federal Court. The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether the Federal Circuit Court had correctly applied the law in making its decision and whether there were any grounds for the review of that decision.

The central legal issue before the Federal Court was whether the Federal Circuit Court's decision to declare the applicant's visa invalid due to their non-attendance at a hearing was lawful. The court had to consider whether the Federal Circuit Court had the authority to make such a declaration and if the procedural fairness was observed in doing so. Additionally, the court needed to examine if there were any grounds for the applicant to challenge the Federal Circuit Court's decision under the Judicial Review Act.

The Federal Court held that the Federal Circuit Court's decision was lawful and correctly made. The court found that the Federal Circuit Court had the authority to declare the visa invalid due to the applicant's non-appearance, and that procedural fairness was observed. The court further determined that there were no grounds for the applicant to challenge the Federal Circuit Court's decision. As a result, the application for judicial review was dismissed. The court ordered that the originating application be dismissed with costs as agreed or assessed. The orders were to be entered in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The originating application filed 3 October 2018 be dismissed under r 5.23(1)(b)(i) of the Federal Court Rules 2011, with costs as agreed or assessed.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.