MZWQR v Minister for Immigration
[2005] FMCA 382
•2 March 2005
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| MZWQR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION | [2005] FMCA 382 |
| MIGRATION – Review of Refugee Review Tribunal decision – refusal of a protection visa. |
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
| Applicant: | MZWQR |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
| File No: | MLG 1145 of 2004 |
| Delivered on: | 2 March 2005 |
| Delivered at: | Melbourne |
| Hearing Date: | 2 March 2005 |
| Judgment of: | Riethmuller FM |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | No appearance |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr T.B.M. Mosby |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Clayton Utz |
ORDERS
The applicant’s application filed 2 September 2004 be dismissed.
The applicant do pay the respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $2,500.00.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE |
MLG 1145 of 2004
| MZWQR |
Applicant
and
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from transcript)
This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the RRT’) of 29 January 2004.
The RRT in this matter had reviewed the written material lodged by the applicant and on 11 December 2003 wrote to the applicant advising that on the written material it was unable to make a favourable decision, and invited the applicant to attend to give oral evidence and present arguments at a hearing on 28 January 2004.
The applicant did not respond to that invitation and the letter was returned by the applicant unclaimed. The RRT also attempted to contact the applicant by telephoning him at a home number and mobile number that he had supplied. The person answering the home number said that no‑one by the applicant's name lived there and messages left at the mobile phone number were unanswered.
The applicant did not appear before the RRT.
Not surprisingly, the RRT rejected the applicant's versions of events, both on the basis of the review of the case file and taking into account that he had not lodged his claim for more than a year after arriving in Australia.
In the circumstances, the findings against the applicant appear to sound in the category of findings on matters of fact. The applicant in his review application sets out that the grounds upon which he relies:
That the attached decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal involves jurisdictional error.
There is therefore nothing before the court to identify what it is that the applicant says was the error made by the RRT. The applicant was ordered to file and serve any amended application with proper particulars within 21 days after receiving the court book which was filed on 24 December 2004. The applicant was also ordered to file and serve contentions of fact and law 21 days after receiving the court book. None of these events have taken place.
The applicant has been sent a copy of the current application to his address for service, as is attested to by the affidavit of Nanad Jevric. The applicant has not attended today.
In the circumstances I dismiss the application and order that the applicant pay the respondent's costs fixed at $2,500.00.
I certify that the preceding nine (9) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Riethmuller FM
Associate:
Date:
0
0
0