MZXPJ v Minister for Immigration

[2007] FMCA 1344

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MZXPJ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2007] FMCA 1344

MIGRATION – Protection visa – non-appearance – no arguable case – adjournment refused – application dismissed.

MZXPF v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2007] FMCA 1343

Applicant: MZXPJ

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File number: MLG 260 of 2007

Judgment of: McInnis FM

Hearing date: 2 August 2007

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 2 August 2007

REPRESENTATION

Applicant: No appearance

Solicitor for the First Respondent: Mr D. Brown

Solicitors for the First Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

1. The Application be dismissed pursuant to r.13.03A of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001..

2. The Applicant shall pay the First Respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $3,200.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
MELBOURNE

MLG 260 of 2007

MZXPJ

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Revised from transcript)

1. In this application, it is noted that there is no appearance on behalf of the Applicant.  The Applicant is the brother of Applicant MZXPF in application MLG 241 of 2007. 

2. To the extent that it is relevant, I adopt and apply the reasoning of this Court in the judgment that I have delivered this day in application MLG 241 of 2007 (MZXPF v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2007] FMCA 1343). It is clear to me that the facts and circumstances in that case are similar, if not identical, to the facts and circumstances in the present application.

3. As with application MLG 241 of 2007, the Applicant in this application, MLG 260 of 2007, has also forwarded to the Court a letter which simply states:

   “I am sick and unable to attend the hearing on 2 August 2007.”

4. That letter, dated 1 August 2007, provides an address in Queensland for this Applicant which is identical to the address to which I note correspondence was forwarded by the solicitors for the First Respondent in almost identical terms to correspondence forwarded to this Applicant's brother.

5. It is not necessary for the Court to recite the background details in this application as they have been adequately summarised in the other application which, as I have indicated, to the extent that it is relevant, I adopt for present purposes. 

6. In my view, this Applicant, as with the other application, has failed to provide any or any adequate material which would justify an adjournment, has otherwise not appeared and this application, as with the other application, does not in my view reveal any jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal. 

7. It follows for those reasons that this application should be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of McInnis FM

Associate: 

Date: 2 August 2007