Kim v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2006] FCA 281

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Kim v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs
[2006] FCA 281

DAE-JUNG KIM v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
NSD 2631 OF 2005

WILCOX J
9 MARCH 2006
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 2631 OF 2005

BETWEEN:	DAE-JUNG KIM APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE OF ORDER:	9 MARCH 2006
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application for an extension of time to appeal be dismissed with 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	NSD 2631 OF 2005

BETWEEN:	DAE-JUNG KIM APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE:	9 MARCH 2006
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

WILCOX J:

1. This is an application for an extension of time to appeal against a judgment given by Federal Magistrate Nicholls on 25 November 2005.  The application for an extension of time was filed on 23 December 2005.  This means it was only a few days late.  Consequently, if it was apparent that there was a fairly arguable case I would unhesitatingly extend time.  To the contrary, it is clear from the reasons for decision of the Magistrate that the appeal is futile.  The facts before the Migration Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) were that the employer who had previously nominated the applicant had failed to secure approval by a delegate of the Minister, and on appeal against that decision, by the Tribunal.

2. It is true that the applicant had in mind another employer but this employer had not been approved and was not the subject of the application now under appeal.  The structure of the regulations is such that without an approved employer, the relevant visa could not have been granted.

3. There are other aspects of the matter which are discussed in the Magistrate's reasons which I need not go into.  It seems obvious to me that the Tribunal had no option other than to refuse the application and consequently there is no point in the matter occupying any further time in this Court.

4. I dismiss the application for extension of time with costs.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Wilcox.

Associate:

Dated:            22 March 2006

Solicitor for the Applicant:	Mr D Knaggs of Cross Law
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Ms A Alex of Phillips Fox
Date of Hearing:	9 March 2006
Date of Judgment:	9 March 2006