MZAHQ v Minister for Immigration

[2015] FCCA 1046

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MZAHQ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2015] FCCA 1046

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Application for Judicial Review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal – no appearance by or on behalf of applicant – letter seeking adjournment – adjournment refused – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001

Applicant: MZAHQ

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: MLG 1351 of 2014

Judgment of: Judge McGuire

Hearing date: 23 April 2015

Date of Last Submission: 24 April 2015

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 23 April 2015

REPRESENTATION

Solicitor for Applicant Self Represented

Counsel for First Respondent: Ms Ngo

Solicitors for the First Respondent: Australian Government Solicitors

ORDERS

1. The application for an adjournment be refused.

2. The Application filed on 7 July 2014 be dismissed.

3. The Applicant pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $6,825.00.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLG 1351 of 2014

MZAHQ

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The substantive application is one seeking judicial review of the refusal of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) to grant the applicant a Protection (Class XA) visa (“the visa”).

2. This matter has been listed for judicial review on an application filed 7 July 2014. The Registrar made orders and directions on 1 October 2014. Despite that flux in time the Court file does not disclose the applicant having followed those orders and directions in terms of filing submissions. I do have submissions on behalf of the first respondent.

3. The Minister is represented in Court today. When the matter was called today there was no appearance by or on behalf of the applicant.

4. The Court file discloses a letter that was forwarded to the Court dated 30 March 2015 and received at this Court on 31 March 2015, purporting to be from the applicant and requesting an adjournment. Given that no courtesy copy had been provided to the respondents my associate forwarded a copy of the letter to the respondents and by letter of 9 April 2015, after receiving a response from the respondents, my associate notified the applicant at his given address as follows:

   We are in receipt of your letter dated 30 March 2015 requesting an adjournment of hearing listed on Thursday 23 April 2015 at 10.00 am before Judge McGuire in Melbourne.

   The first respondent and second respondent do not consent to the matter being adjourned on the next listed date. As such, you will need to appear in Court on this date and make your application to his Honour for an adjournment of the matter.

5. In the sense of caution and fairness, however, I will treat the letter of 30 March 2015, in any event, as seeking an adjournment. That letter inter alia states that the applicant sought assistance from Legal Aid Victoria on 28 October 2014. He was advised on 18 March 2014, which is now some five weeks ago, that Legal Aid could no longer assist in his case and were withdrawing their assistance. It is open to me to presume that, at least on a minimal basis, the applicant had the benefit of some assistance from Legal Aid during that five month period.

6. The applicant proceeds to complain as to the unfairness and unreasonableness on the part of Legal Aid which is something I will not take into account.

7. The applicant says that he begs for six months to get ready for the case; he has no money; and he needs to get help from a lawyer. This is the essence of the application.

8. In opposition to the application for adjournment, Counsel for the Minister points out that the application itself was filed as long ago as 7 July 2014; the Registrar’s directions anticipate some written submissions; and frankly there is no explanation in the letter as to why those written submissions in some form have not been provided to the Court.

9. The applicant on his own omission has now had some five weeks in which to obtain some further basic legal advice and indeed, I accept the submission of Counsel for the Minster that as from about July 2014 the Australian Government Solicitor, in advising and serving the applicant with a Notice of Address for Service, had provided the applicant with the usual information in respect of legal resources by way of Community Legal Centres, Legal Aid and the like to assist the applicant. There is no indication, first, that the applicant has taken up the invitation and suggestions and importantly, in my view, and in despite of him saying that he has been advised of the non assistance of Legal Aid as from March, there is no indication in his letter as to what, if any, attempts the applicant has subsequently made to obtain legal advice in the meantime.

10. Whilst I am mindful of his alleged impecunious state, the letter that I have referred to also lacks any information as to what would be achieved in this respect if there was to be an adjournment for six months. I also accept the submission of Counsel for the Minister that there is a public policy consideration. There is a well-known delay in these matters in the matters being able to come before a Court. They are filed in a large number and the resources of the Court and the various government departments are extended. Whilst I take into account matters such as English language and the difficulties faced by people applying for orders in respect of the relevant legislation, there is also a public policy as respect to matters being disposed of prudently.

Conclusion

1. In short, the material before the Court does not particularise any efforts made by the applicant which would lend itself to the indulgence sought by the application.

2. The application for an adjournment is refused.

3. There being no appearance by or on behalf of the applicant, the application is dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03C of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001.

I certify that the preceding thirteen (13) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge McGuire

Date:  29 April 2015