Mohamad RAQIM Mohamad Radzi v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

[2014] HCASL 199

MOHAMAD RAQIM MOHAMAD RADZI

v

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION & ANOR

[2014] HCASL 199
B30/2014

1. The applicant, a citizen of Malaysia, applied for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) Subclass 573 visa.  His application was refused by a delegate of the first respondent. 

2. The applicant applied to the Migration Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") for review of the delegate's decision.  An application for review must be accompanied by the prescribed fee[1].  The Tribunal twice refused requests to reduce the prescribed fee.  On each occasion, by letter posted to the address for service provided by the applicant[2], the Tribunal notified him of its decision and advised the date on which the balance of the fee was to be paid.  On 24 January 2013, the Tribunal dismissed the application for want of jurisdiction because the prescribed fee had not been paid. 

   [1]Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 347(1)(c).

   [2]Migration Act, s 379A(4).

3. The applicant applied for judicial review of the Tribunal's determination to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (Judge Burnett).  The application was filed out of time[3].  Judge Burnett declined to extend time[4] having assessed that the grounds did not support any allegation of jurisdictional error[5].

   [3]Migration Act, s 477(1).

   [4]Migration Act, s 477(2).

   [5]Radzi v Minister for Immigration [2013] FCCA 2232 at [22].

4. An appeal to the Federal Court of Australia (Rangiah J) was dismissed. 

5. The applicant applies for special leave to appeal from the orders of the Federal Court. He does not have legal representation and his application falls to be determined under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).

6. Neither the grounds nor the written case engage with the reasons below.  Apart from an unparticularised assertion of a denial of procedural fairness, the focus of each is largely on factual matters.  If special leave to appeal were granted, the appeal would have no prospect of success.

7. The application is dismissed.

8. Pursuant to r 41.10.5, we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

V.M. Bell
10 December 2014 S.J. Gageler