Mohamad RAQIM Mohamad Radzi v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

MOHAMAD RAQIM MOHAMAD RADZI
v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION & ANOR
[2014] HCASL 199
B30/2014

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.
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).
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].
An appeal to the Federal Court of Australia (Rangiah J) was dismissed.
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).
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.
The application is dismissed.
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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mohamad Raqim Mohamad Radzi, a citizen of Malaysia, applied for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) Subclass 573 visa but was refused by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Following the refusal, the applicant sought review of the decision by the Migration Review Tribunal. As part of the review process, the Tribunal required the applicant to pay a prescribed fee, which he did not fully pay. Consequently, the Tribunal twice refused the applicant's requests to reduce the fee. The Tribunal notified the applicant of its decision and the date by which the balance of the fee was to be paid. Failing to pay the fee, the Tribunal dismissed the application for want of jurisdiction. The applicant then applied for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, which was dismissed as it was filed out of time and no grounds for an extension of time were substantiated. An appeal to the Federal Court of Australia was also dismissed. The applicant now applies for special leave to appeal to the High Court.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the application for special leave to appeal should be granted, and whether the applicant's appeal had any prospect of success. The court examined whether the applicant's grounds for appeal, which largely focused on factual matters and procedural fairness, were sufficient to warrant special leave to appeal. Additionally, the court considered whether the applicant's appeal could potentially succeed if granted special leave.

In dismissing the application for special leave to appeal, the court held that the applicant's grounds did not engage with the reasons for the decision of the Tribunal or the Federal Circuit Court. The court noted that the applicant's case was largely unparticularised and did not sufficiently address the legal grounds for appeal. The court concluded that the appeal would have no prospect of success if special leave were granted. Therefore, the application for special leave to appeal was dismissed.

The High Court directed the Registrar to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave to appeal, in accordance with rule 41.10.5 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established