Jindal v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2001] FCA 660

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Jindal v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2001] FCA 660

VANDANA JINDAL v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N 10 of 2001

WILCOX J
26 APRIL 2001
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 10 of 2001

BETWEEN:	VANDANA JINDAL APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE OF ORDER:	26 APRIL 2001
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 10 of 2001

BETWEEN:	VANDANA JINDAL APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE:	26 APRIL 2001
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

WILCOX J:

1. This is an application to set aside a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal. 

2. At the commencement of the hearing today, the applicant was represented by counsel who requested an adjournment.  The basis of this application was that application had recently been made to the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs for the grant of a protection visa to the applicant's infant daughter, who was born in Australia.  I thought this did not provide a sufficient reason for adjourning the subject application.  Although any success that might be achieved in relation to the child's application might provide indirect assistance to the applicant, it could not affect her claim to a protection visa.  I refused the application for adjournment.  Counsel then withdrew from the further hearing of the matter.

3. Ms Jindal then appeared on her own behalf, assisted by an interpreter.  She was aware, from discussion at the directions hearing in February, of the necessity to be ready for the matter to proceed today.  During the intervening period, she had the benefit of legal advice provided free of cost to her pursuant to the Panel Scheme arranged by the court to cover cases such as this. 

4. It appears from an affidavit Ms Jindal filed that she had a conference with a lawyer on 27 February and received written advice on 11 March.  There was, therefore, ample time for her to consider what she wanted to say today.  In the event, the only matter raised by Ms Jindal was a suggestion that her migration agent had acted contrary to her instructions. 

5. It appears Ms Jindal was initially represented by one migration agent in connection with the filing of documents.  The Refugee Review Tribunal set a hearing date, 4 April 2000.  However, in February 2000, the Tribunal postponed the hearing.  Ultimately a new date was set, being 6 October 2000.  Ms Jindal received notice of this date on 10 August 2000.  She indicated she would attend the hearing and be accompanied by her then migration agent.  However, the migration agent indicated he would not attend the hearing and his services were terminated. 

6. On 24 September 2000, Ms Jindal retained a second migration agent.  That migration agent contacted the Tribunal about changing the hearing date, but the Tribunal was unwilling to make a change.  Ms Jindal says she signed a blank sheet of paper and did not authorise the agent to inform the Tribunal she did not wish to attend the hearing.  However, there is included in the papers a letter, which Ms Jindal concedes bears her signature, which reads as follows:

   “I Vandana Jindal, the main applicant of the review bearing number N98/24888 hereby state that we have decided not to attend the hearing which is scheduled fo 6 October 2000 as we did not receive the expected documents from India.  Please make decision on available documents and information.”

7. Acting in accordance with this letter, the Tribunal member went ahead and made a decision on 21 November 2000, which was published on 12 December 2000.  He refused the application for a protection visa.

8. Despite several invitations by me to Ms Jindal to put any submissions she wishes, as to the way the Tribunal handled the matter, she has not done so.  The only complaint she makes is that the migration agent acted contrary to her instructions in informing the Tribunal she did not wish to attend a hearing. 

9. Having regard to the letter I have quoted, I have extreme difficulty in accepting that suggestion.  I see no reason to believe Ms Jindal's statement that she signed a blank sheet of paper.  However, even if she is correct, that is a matter which lies between her and the migration agent.  It does not affect the way in which the Tribunal discharged its responsibilities.  I see no basis of any complaint against the Tribunal as distinct, perhaps, from the migration agent. 

10. In view of the fact that Ms Jindal is not legally represented, I have considered for myself whether there appears to be any ground of review open to her. I am unable to see any such ground. No ground falling within s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 is apparent. Accordingly, I have no option other than to dismiss the application.

11. The order I make is that the application be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding eleven (11) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Wilcox.

Associate:

Dated:             4 June 2001

Counsel for the Applicant:	P Gwozdecky
Counsel for the Respondent:	S Lloyd
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing:	26 April 2001