ISLAM v Minister for Immigration
[2014] FCCA 3047
•15 December 2014
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| ISLAM v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2014] FCCA 3047 |
| Catchwords: MIGRATION – Application to review decision of Migration Review Tribunal – adjournment application. |
| Cases cited: Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175; [2009] HCA 27 |
| Applicant: | HASIBUL ISLAM |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION |
| Second Respondent: | MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 2500 of 2013 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Barnes |
| Hearing date: | 15 December 2014 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 15 December 2014 |
REPRESENTATION
| Applicant: | In person |
| Counsel for the Respondents: | Mr T. Reilly |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | DLA Piper Australia |
ORDERS
The application for an adjournment is refused.
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT AT SYDNEY |
SYG 2500 of 2013
| HASIBUL ISLAM |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION |
First Respondent
| MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from transcript)
This is an application for an adjournment of the hearing of an application for review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal filed on 15 October 2013. The Applicant attended two directions hearings, including one in relation to his application for an extension of time. On 5 March 2014 the matter was listed for hearing on 14 August 2014. Orders were made for the Applicant to file any further evidence by 16 April 2014. No further documents were filed by the Applicant.
In August 2014 it became necessary to adjourn the hearing. The Applicant was notified that the matter was listed for hearing on 15 December 2014. On 9 December 2014 the Registry received a number of documents from the Applicant seeking an adjournment of the hearing on the basis that he was unable to attend due to the absence of his uncle who was said to be his “spokesman” and in Bangladesh. He claimed that his uncle could not return until 25 January 2015 because a family member had died. He claimed that whenever the case was in Court or before the Tribunal, his uncle would “handle the case”. The Applicant also claimed that all the documents relating to the case were with his uncle. He asked, somewhat surprisingly, for an adjournment until after April 2015.
The First Respondent opposed the adjournment. I made an order in chambers refusing the adjournment, as I was not satisfied on the material before me that it was in the interests of the parties or the administration of justice (see Cannv Commonwealth Bank of Australia (No. 5) [2011] FMCA 768 at [16]). I intended today to deliver short reasons for that decision, but before doing so I asked the Applicant if he maintained his application. He said he did. I asked him if he had anything additional to say beyond what was in the statutory declaration and the documents about his current studies sent to the Court on 9 December 2014. He said that his uncle was collecting new papers, although he did not know what they were. Despite the fact that he told the Court that he was 26 years old he stated that his uncle was his guardian. He claimed he wanted an adjournment until his uncle returned.
As explained further below, these additional factors do not change my view that an adjournment would not be in the interests of the administration of justice or of the parties.
Relevant to both the earlier adjournment application and this one, the Applicant has been in Australia since 2009. The present proceedings have been on foot since October 2013. The Applicant has had ample opportunity to put evidence before the Court in accordance with the directions that were made in March 2014.
I recognise that the Applicant is self-represented. However there is no suggestion that the uncle is legally qualified. The Applicant has had ample time to put written material before the Court relevant to the claims that he makes. Insofar as he now claims the uncle is “collecting new papers”, there is no explanation as to what these new papers are or how they would assist the Court to determine whether the Tribunal made a jurisdictional error. The claim that the uncle is the Applicant’s guardian has to be seen in light of the fact that the Applicant is a 26 year old adult who has been here since 2009.
The Applicant contended that his uncle knew everything about what had happened before his student visa was refused. If that was so, the Applicant had the opportunity to put such information to the Tribunal at the time the matter was before the Tribunal.
I am not satisfied that the presence of the uncle or indeed any further documentation of some unexplained nature from Bangladesh could in any way assist or be relevant to the issue of whether the Tribunal made a jurisdictional error. Nor am I satisfied that the fact that the Applicant is currently studying warrants an adjournment.
I have also had regard to the need for the efficient use of Court resources and the time that this matter has been in the system (see Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175; [2009] HCA 27 at [27] per French CJ and Cann at [15] – [16] per Lucev FM. Having regard to all the circumstances, I am not satisfied that an adjournment is in the interests of the administration of justice or of the parties. The application for an adjournment is refused.
I certify that the preceding nine (9) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Barnes
Associate:
Date: 14 January 2015
0
3
0