KC v Minister for Immigration

[2014] FCCA 3204

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KC v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2014] FCCA 3204

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: BACHCHAN KC

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 1992 of 2013

Judgment of: Judge Nicholls

Hearing date: 26 May 2014

Date of Last Submission: 26 May 2014

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 26 May 2014

REPRESENTATION

Applicant: No appearance

Solicitors for the Respondents: Ms S Burnett of Clayton Utz

ORDERS

1. The title of the first respondent is amended to read “Minister for Immigration and Border Protection”.

2. The application made on 23 August 2013 is dismissed for non-appearance pursuant to Rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth).

3. The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs set in the amount of $4,200.00.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 1992 of 2013

BACHCHAN KC

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & 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 on 23 August 2013, pursuant to s.476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) seeking review of the decision of the Migration Review Tribunal made on 2 August 2013, which affirmed the decision of the Minister’s delegate not to grant the applicant a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa.

2. The applicant appeared in person at the first Court date in this matter on 30 October 2013.  He was assisted by an interpreter in the Nepali language. A number of orders were made on that day for the prosecution of this matter. I note that order four, made in the presence of the applicant, was that his application was listed for final hearing on 26 May 2014 at 2.15 pm. 

3. I am satisfied that the applicant was on notice of the final hearing of his matter today.  I take into account the respondent’s exhibits one and two (“RE1” and “RE2”) and I am satisfied that the applicant was recently reminded of the date and time of the final hearing, and given the specific location of the courtroom, both in terms of the building and its location within the building.

4. The matter was scheduled for 2.15pm.  When the matter was called today, at about that time, the applicant did not appear.  I adjourned for a short time to allow the applicant to appear, in case he was detained or running late.  It is now 2.30pm and there has been no appearance by, or for, the applicant.  His absence remains unexplained.

5. I am not aware of any communication to the Court’s Registry seeking any adjournment of the Court event or otherwise notifying of any difficulty in attending today.  I am satisfied, in all the circumstances, that the order that the Minister seeks should be made. I will make the order accordingly.

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Nicholls

Associate: 

Date:  4 March 2016