MZWDV v Minister for Immigration

[2005] FMCA 812

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MZWDV v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2005] FMCA 812

MIGRATION – Review of Refugee Review Tribunal decision – refusal to grant protection visa – non-compliance – no appearance – summary dismissal.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

Applicant: MZWDV

Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File Number: MLG 263 of 2004

Judgment of: Riethmuller FM

Hearing date: 6 April 2005

Date of Last Submission: N/A

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 6 April 2005

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Nil

Solicitors for the Applicant: Nil

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Brereton

Solicitors for the Respondent: Nil

ORDERS

1. The applicant’s application filed 11 March 2004 be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $2845.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
MELBOURNE

MLG 263 of 2004

MZWDV

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Revised from transcript)

1. This is a motion to summarily dismiss an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal of 28 January 2004. 

2. The tribunal decision in the matter appears in the court book and runs for some 24 pages.  The applicant claims to have come from Macedonia and fear persecution in that country. 

3. The tribunal did not accept that the applicant was a credible witness and rejected the factual basis of his claim. 

4. The applicant's grounds for judicial review are as follows:

   1.        The decision:

   (a)Was made without jurisdiction or is affected by an error of jurisdiction;

   (b)Is affected by an error of law;

   (c)Is so unreasonable that no reasonable decision maker could have made it;

   (d)Was based on a finding for which there was no evidence or other material;

   (e)Takes into account irrelevant considerations;

   (f)Fails to take into account relevant considerations;

   (g)Was an improper exercise of power conferred by the Migration Act 1958;

   (h)Was otherwise contrary to law; and/or

   (i)Was made in bad faith

   2.        The Decision Maker failed to accord the Applicant natural justice in that the decision maker:

   (a)Was biased;

   (b)Failed to follow the procedures required by the Migration Act;

   (c)Asked the wrong questions or misconceived his/her duty.

5. Notably, these grounds have the appearance of a list from a law school notebook of the possible grounds upon which one may seek judicial review.  None of them refer to any fact or circumstance or allegation specific to this particular case.  Indeed, the grounds themselves appear to acknowledge this, stating:

   Particulars will be provided in accordance with the directions of the court.

6. Such particulars were not provided in accordance with the directions made by the court.  On 19 May 2004 Registrar Efthim made directions at a time when the applicant was assisted by Victoria Legal Aid.  The applicant has not complied with that order. 

7. On 16 June 2004 a further directions order was made by Registrar Efthim, the applicant was again assisted by Legal Aid. Again the applicant failed to comply with the directions requiring him to provide particulars and a statement of facts and contentions.

8. The solicitors for the Minister wrote to the applicant to tell him of his breach of the orders and asked him to comply with them.  That letter appears to have gone unanswered.  The solicitors for the applicant wrote again on 6 March with respect to the matter, and again that letter appears to be unanswered. 

9. The applicant did not appear today.  An affidavit of service as to the notice of motion has been read. 

10. In the circumstances, I dismiss the application.

I certify that the preceding ten (10) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Riethmuller FM

Associate: 

Date: