DHINDSA v Minister for Immigration

[2014] FCCA 3203

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DHINDSA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2014] FCCA 3203

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

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.476

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

Applicant: RANDHIR SINGH DHINDSA

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 1903 of 2014

Judgment of: Judge Nicholls

Hearing date: 12 November 2014

Date of Last Submission: 12 November 2014

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 12 November 2014

REPRESENTATION

Applicant: No appearance

Solicitors for the Respondents: Ms A Carr of DLA Piper

ORDERS

1. The application made on 9 July 2014 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 $3000.00. 

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 1903 of 2014

RANDHIR SINGH DHINDSA

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Ex Tempore; Revised from Transcript)

1. I have before me today an application made by the Minister seeking dismissal of the application made by the applicant pursuant to r.13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth).

2. The applicant made an application pursuant to s.476 of the Migration Act1958 (Cth) on 9 July 2014 seeking review of the decision of the Migration Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) made on 6 June 2014 which found that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to review the Minister’s delegate’s decision to refuse a visa to the applicant..

3. The matter was set down for a first Court date on 23 July 2014 at 9.30 am.  On that occasion, the applicant appeared in person.  He was assisted by an interpreter in the Punjabi language.  I made various orders in the applicant’s presence for the prosecution of the case.  In particular, the matter was set down for mention at a callover today at 9.30 am here in this Courtroom.  The applicant was present in Court when that order was made.  I also have before me the respondent’s exhibit one (“RE1”), being a letter dated 29 July 2014, sent to the applicant at the address for service, reminding the applicant of the mention today, and putting the applicant on notice that if he did not attend, the Minister may seek to have the matter dismissed with costs for non-appearance. 

4. On the previous occasion, I made a number of orders giving the applicant the opportunity to file and serve any further evidence by way of affidavit and any amended application that he wished to make to the Court.  Nothing further has been filed by the applicant. 

5. In any event, I am satisfied on what is before the Court that the applicant had reasonable notice of the Court event today in his matter, and that he was on notice as to the application that the Minister has now sought.  He chose not to attend.  His non-attendance is unexplained before the Court.  There is no application for any adjournment before the Court.  I am not aware of any communications to the Court’s Registry seeking to notify of any difficulty in appearing today. 

6. In all the circumstances, it is appropriate that the order that the Minister seeks is made.  I will make the order, accordingly.

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

Date: 2 December 2016