MZWUL v Minister for Immigration
[2005] FMCA 254
•17 February 2005
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| MZWUL v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION | [2005] FMCA 254 |
| MIGRATION – Review of Refugee Review Tribunal decision – refusal of a protection visa. |
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
| Applicant: | MZWUL |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
| File No: | MLG 1624 of 2004 |
| Delivered on: | 17 February 2005 |
| Delivered at: | Melbourne |
| Hearing Date: | 17 February 2005 |
| Judgment of: | Riethmuller FM |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | The applicant appeared in person |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Ms S.E. Burchell |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | The Australian Government Solicitor |
ORDERS
The applicant’s applications, dated 15 December 2004 and 8 October 2004 be dismissed.
The applicant not commence further proceedings without leave of a Court with appropriate jurisdication.
The applicant do pay the respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $6,900.00.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE |
MLG 1624 of 2004
| MZWUL |
Applicant
and
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(revised from transcript)
In this matter the applicant sought a protection visa on 21 July 2003. The protection visa application was refused by a delegate of the minister. The applicant subsequently appealed to the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the RRT’). The RRT also refused his application for a protection visa, finding against him on the facts and circumstances of his case. The RRT were unable to be satisfied of the relevant facts necessary to establish the right to a visa. The applicant lodged an application for judicial review in the Federal Court which was remitted to this court.
The applicant failed to attend on a previous court date or comply with directions and the matter was struck out by me.
The applicant then issued another application for judicial review and applied to reinstate the initial application for judicial review. As a result, I ordered that the two applications be heard together on this date and made orders for further directions.
The applicant has not complied with any of those orders in that he has not lodged any further particulars of his application or outline of case document. He had a solicitor acting for him who has withdrawn and a copy of the notice of withdrawal is on the court file.
The solicitors for the respondent, quite properly, have written to the applicant on 10 February advising him that the matters are listed for final hearing on 17 February and that if he did not attend or his representatives did not attend they would ask the court to dismiss the applications. The letter also pointed out to him that because he had applied to the court twice before and not attended hearings in the past, that an order would be sought restraining him from filing further applications without permission of the court. This is a very fair letter which clearly sets out the circumstances and the position of the Minister. It was sent to the address for service of the applicant. The letter has been tendered and marked Exhibit ‘1’ in these proceedings.
In the circumstances, where the applicant has not attended and his name has been called three times, it is appropriate to dismiss both applications.
It is also appropriate to make orders that he not commence further proceedings without leave of a court having jurisdiction to deal with proceedings with respect to the RRT decision of 30 June 2004.
It is also appropriate that he pay the costs of the proceedings.
I certify that the preceding eight (8) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Riethmuller FM
Associate:
Date:
0
0
0