MZSAL v Minister for Immigration (No.2)
[2004] FMCA 530
•28 July 2004
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| MZSAL v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION (No.2) | [2004] FMCA 530 |
| MIGRATION – Practice and procedure – adjournment application – applicant seeking time to obtain private legal advice – pro bono application had been refused – adjournment refused. |
| Applicants: | MZSAL |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
| File No: | MZ 906 of 2003 |
| Delivered on: | 28 July 2004 |
| Delivered at: | Melbourne |
| Hearing Date: | 28 July 2004 |
| Judgment of: | Phipps FM |
REPRESENTATION
| The applicants appeared in person. |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr C.J. Horan |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Australian Government Solicitor |
ORDERS
That the application for adjournment is refused.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE |
MZ 906 of 2003
| MZSAL |
Applicants
and
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
An application has been made for adjournment by the applicants. The applicants appear in person. As I discern it, the basis of the application is that the applicants wish to seek to see if they can obtain some legal advice. Reference is made to the respondent's contentions of fact and law and in particular, paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2. The applicants are both citizens of India and the basis of their claim for a protection visa is that the male applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution because of his Muslim faith.
The basis of his application is that he lived with his family in a small village which was predominantly Hindu. His father had a shop and was prominent within the village. People came to the shop and demanded money, violence was committed and there were threats of violence. It is alleged that was because the male applicant was a Muslim. The female applicant claims similar fear, but her application for a protection visa is based on being the spouse of the male applicant, the first applicant.
Paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2 of the respondent's contentions of fact and law are a summary of matters which are contained within the tribunal's reasons; that is, the tribunal was not satisfied that the essential and significant reason why the applicant was targeted was his religion.
It also summarises the tribunal's finding that it did not find that the applicant was a credible witness. The applicants contest those findings, as of course they contested those matters before the tribunal.
The application was filed in this court on 20 August 2003 with a first court date of 15 October 2003. It came before a registrar on
15 October 2003 and directions were given for the filing of an amended application, a supplementary court book and contentions of fact and law by both sides. It was adjourned until 18 February 2004. The report of listing for that date which is on the court file shows that the applicants were represented by a Legal Aid solicitor on 15 October 2003. On 18 February 2004, further directions were given for the filing of contentions. Again the applicants were represented by a Legal Aid solicitor. The report of listing contains a note that there had been a pro-bono request which had already been dealt with and since it is on the report of listing, I take it that was a matter which was mentioned before the registrar.
The female, applicant who is representing both parties, has said they have sought to obtain private legal advice but it is too expensive for them. They now seek time to try and seek some further advice because of what is said in the contentions of fact and law in paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2. There is nothing in those contentions which are at all surprising. The approach which is taken by the respondent in the contentions is that these were findings of fact by the tribunal. The findings of fact were open to the tribunal and there is nothing to show any error and, in particular, any jurisdictional error.
In those circumstances, there is no basis for an application for adjournment. The applicants have had considerable time to prepare their case. They have had assistance from a Legal Aid solicitor. They have had a pro-bono application requested. They can put nothing before the court to show that they will be able to obtain legal advice, and in any event, there is no basis for permitting them further time to attempt to obtain legal advice. There has been plenty of time for that to be done. The application for adjournment is refused.
I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Phipps FM
Associate: Sherryn Kwong
Date: 23 August 2004
0
0
0