MZWKP v Minister for Immigration

[2005] FMCA 1043

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MZWKP v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2005] FMCA 1043

MIGRATION – Protection visa – no jurisdictional error.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Hearing in absence of Applicant – Applicant confirmed intention to rely on written submissions.

Migration Act 1958, s.474

Applicant M117 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration [2004] FMCA 166

VAT v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 255
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24

NAHI v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2004) FCA FC 10
Selvadurai v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 34 ALD 347
Thirasami v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1999) FCA 1632

Applicant: MZWKP

Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File Number: MLG 658 of 2004

Judgment of: McInnis FM

Hearing date: 18 July 2005

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 18 July 2005

REPRESENTATION

Applicant: No appearance

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms J.K. Macdonnell

Solicitors for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

1. The application as amended be dismissed.

2. The applicant shall pay the respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $6,500.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
MELBOURNE

MLG 658 of 2004

MZWKP

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL
& INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Revised from transcript)

1. This is an application by the applicant seeking review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the RRT) dated 30 March 1999.  In its decision the RRT had affirmed a decision of a delegate who refused to grant to the applicant a protection visa.  The proceedings this day were heard in the absence of the applicant.  The applicant did not appear, though had advised the respondent which in turn had advised the court that due to financial reasons the applicant who is now in South Australia was unable to attend the court.  The applicant has, however, relied upon an amended application filed 19 November 2004, together with contentions of fact and law filed the same day.  In addition, the applicant has forwarded a facsimile transmission on 17 July 2005 to the respondent's solicitors and in turn has sought to rely upon those additional submissions and/or particulars.

2. Upon being notified that the applicant was not able to attend and that according to the respondent's solicitors was content for the court to proceed to consider the matter in his absence, my deputy associate made contact with the applicant at a telephone number provided by him to the respondent's solicitors.  During the course of that telephone contact, the applicant confirmed that he was content for the matter to proceed in his absence this day and did not wish to attend the scheduled hearing, though he did ask that the correspondence to which I refer dated 17 July 2005 be received by the court and that he be permitted to rely upon that correspondence.  No objection has been taken by the respondent to the applicant following that course.  Although the court was minded to consider…