EL-MAKDISSI v Minister for Immigration
[2005] FMCA 809
•6 April 2005
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| EL-MAKDISSI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION | [2005] FMCA 809 |
| MIGRATION – Review of Migration Review Tribunal decision – non-compliance – no attendance – summary dismissal. |
| Migration Act 1958 (Cth) |
| Applicant: | EL-MAKDISSI |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
| File Number: | MLG 429 of 2004 |
| Judgment of: | Riethmuller FM |
| Hearing date: | 6 April 2005 |
| Delivered at: | Melbourne |
| Delivered on: | 6 April 2005 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Nil |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Nil |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Ms A.G. Dea |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Nil |
ORDERS
The applicant’s application filed 27 April 2004 be dismissed.
The applicant pay the respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $4140.00.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE |
MLG 429 of 2004
| EL-MAKDISSI |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from transcript)
This is an application to summarily dismiss an application by Mr El‑Makdissi for a review of the Migration Review Tribunal decision affirming a delegate's decision not to grant him a visa.
It appears that the hearing before the MRT was on oral evidence, although the nominator did not attend.
The MRT in this case has prepared a decision running to 44 paragraphs dealing with the issues raised by the applicant in his visa application and the review tribunal hearing.
The matter was then the subject of an application in this court which has been the subject of two directions orders. The first order was by Registrar Efthim on 20 July 2004 which ordered that the applicant file and serve an amended application containing proper particulars by 4 August 2004 and contentions of fact and law by 11 August 2004.
This was not complied with, although it seems that the respondent had not filed and served a court book in the time frame provided by Registrar Efthim. As a result, further directions were made by Registrar Mussett on 17 November 2004 ordering that the applicant file and serve an amended application containing proper particulars by 15 December 2004 and contentions of fact and law by 22 December 2004, Registrar Mussett then listed the matter before Connolly FM on 18 April 2005 at 2.15. None of these orders have been complied with.
The state of the application leaves much to be desired. The grounds of the application are as follows:
The respondent failed to observe the proper procedures with regard to the applicants.
(2) The decision involved procedural unfairness towards the applicants.
There is nothing in the material to indicate to the court or the respondent what it is about this case that would show that the respondent failed to observe proper procedures in a way that would be judicially reviewable, nor anything to indicate what it was about the procedure that was said to have involved procedural unfairness in a way that would enliven judicial review.
There appears to be nothing remarkable about the decision of the MRT that would cause one to have concerns.
The applicant is not here today, although was sent the material by courier on Friday. The solicitor for the Minister has undertaken to file an affidavit deposing to service by courier.
I note that the applicant was previously represented by Mr Belbruno, but he withdrew in October of 2004. It does not appear that the applicant has filed a further notice of address for service since that date in any event.
In the circumstances, I dismiss the application and order that the applicant pay the respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $4,100.00.
I certify that the preceding eleven (11) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Riethmuller FM
Associate:
Date:
0
0
1