Kancharla v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

[2019] FCA 713

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Kancharla v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 713

Appeal from:	Application for leave to appeal: Kancharla v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2018] FCCA 3921
File number:	VID 12 of 2019
Judge:	MURPHY J
Date of judgment:	16 May 2019
Date of hearing:	16 May 2019
Registry:	Victoria
Division:	General Division
National Practice Area:	Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Category:	No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	3
Counsel for the Applicant:	The Applicant did not appear
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Mr C Hibbard of Clayton Utz
Counsel for the Second Respondent:	The Second Respondent filed a submitting notice

ORDERS

VID 12 of 2019

BETWEEN:

ANITHA KANCHARLA

Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MURPHY J
DATE OF ORDER:	16 MAY 2019

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed pursuant to r 35.33 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

2.The Applicant pay the First Respondent’s costs.

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(revised from transcript)

MURPHY J:

1. In this proceeding, the applicant, Ms Anitha Kancharla, applies for an extension of time and leave to appeal from an interlocutory decision of the Federal Circuit Court made on 11 December 2018.  The Federal Circuit Court summarily dismissed the applicant’s application for judicial review of a decision of the second respondent, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which affirmed the decision of the delegate of the first respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, not to grant the applicant a student (temporary) (class TU) (subclass 572) visa.

2. However, on a proper construction of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (the Rules), in particular r 35.13 and r 1.61(5), the application was filed within time, and no extension of time application was necessary.  However, the applicant does require leave to appeal.

3. The matter was listed for hearing at 2.15 pm today, and the parties were so advised by letter from my chambers on 26 April 2019 and reminded of the directions made by Registrar McCormick on 6 February 2019. There was no appearance from the applicant. The matter was called outside the Court room and the applicant did not appear. I stood the matter down for half an hour and requested the instructing solicitors for the first respondent to attempt to contact the applicant. I am informed by counsel for the first respondent that two calls were made to the applicant’s telephone number set out on the application, but there was no response. My chambers had not been contacted by the applicant seeking to explain her non-attendance. In all the circumstances, it is appropriate to dismiss the application by reason of the applicant’s absence, pursuant to r 35.33(1)(a) of the Rules, and I have made orders accordingly.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Murphy.

Associate: 

Dated:       20 May 2019