MZWQQ v Minister for Immigration
[2005] FMCA 987
•4 May 2005
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| MZWQQ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION | [2005] FMCA 987 |
| MIGRATION – Review of Refugee Review Tribunal decision – refusal to grant a protection visa – non-compliance – no appearance. |
| Migration Act 1958 (Cth) |
| Applicant: | MZWQQ |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
| File Number: | MLG 1138 of 2004 |
| Judgment of: | Riethmuller FM |
| Hearing date: | 4 May 2005 |
| Date of Last Submission: | N/A |
| Delivered at: | Melbourne |
| Delivered on: | 4 May 2005 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr New |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Clayton Utz |
ORDERS
That the applicant’s application filed 31 August 2004 be dismissed.
That the applicant pay the respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $2280.00.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE |
MLG 1138 of 2004
| MZWQQ |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from transcript)
This is an application seeking judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal of 20 July 2004.
The applicant is a citizen of India who arrived in Australia on 6 November 2003. On 4 December 2003 he lodged an application for a protection visa. This was refused on 15 January 2004. On 10 February 2004 he applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal. Following the refusal of the tribunal of his application, he then brought an application in the Federal Magistrates Court, filed on 31 August 2004.
The application sets out the orders that the applicant seeks, being a declaration, mandamus, prohibition and an injunction to stop the respondent from taking any steps to remove him from Australia. The application does not provide any details of the grounds upon which the applicant relied.
Not surprisingly, when the matter came before Registrar Mussett on 15 December 2004, she ordered that the applicant file and serve an amended application containing proper particulars of the grounds relied upon, if any, by 16 February 2005. She also ordered that the applicant file and serve contentions of fact and law by 4 March 2005, and set the matter for hearing on 20 May. The applicant has not taken any of those steps. No further documents appear to have been lodged.
The respondent, by notice of motion seeks to have the application dismissed. The notice of motion was sent to the applicant at his address for service (as is attested to in the affidavit of service of Nanad Jevric, which I gave the respondent leave to file this afternoon).
In the circumstances it appears clear that the applicant does not intend to pursue the matter in that he has not complied with any of the procedural orders, nor has he appeared today despite being called before the matter proceeded.
I note from a perusal of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal member that the member stated:
As noted above, I do not accept any of the relevant claims made by the applicant. To remove any doubt, I reject the following claims: (i) that the applicant was requested by police to fabricate evidence against Azhagiri or his associates; (ii) that the applicant had any involvement with the DMK party; (iii) that the police made inquiries about the whereabouts of the applicant; (iv) that associates of Azhagiri made any inquiries about the applicant, and (v) that if the applicant's shop was burned, that it had any connection with Azhagiri.
The applicant's account was contrived and had no credible foundation. He is not a refugee. He has no reason to fear returning to India.
In the circumstances I dismiss the applicant's application as a result of his non-compliance with orders and non-appearance today.
In this case there is no reason why the minister should not receive costs. The amount sought is $2280, which I allow having regard to the Federal Magistrates Court scale.
I certify that the preceding nine (9) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Riethmuller FM.
Associate:
Date:
0
0
1