SINGH v Minister for Immigration

[2015] FCCA 1951

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SINGH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2015] FCCA 1951

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Refugees and Migration Division) – Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa – dismissal for want of appearance.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.476

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001, r.13.03C(1)(c)

Minister For Immigration v Lee & Ors [2014] FCCA 2881

Applicant: GURWINDER SINGH

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 1011 of 2015

Judgment of: Judge Street

Hearing date: 17 July 2015

Date of Last Submission: 17 July 2015

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 17 July 2015

REPRESENTATION

No appearance by the applicant

Solicitors for the Respondents: Ms Taah
Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

1. The name of the Second Respondent be amended to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the filing of any further documents in this regard is dispensed with.

2. The application be dismissed pursuant to r.13.03C of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001.

3. The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $6,825.00.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 1011 of 2015

GURWINDER SINGH

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is a matter within the Court’s jurisdiction under s.476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) in respect of an application for a Constitutional writ in respect of a decision of the Tribunal made on 17 March 2015 concluding that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction in respect of an application to review a decision of the delegate refusing to grant the applicant a temporary business entry class UC visa. The application was listed for hearing today and the applicant has not appeared.

2. An affidavit has been filed and read by the first respondent identifying that the applicant’s bridging visa ceased on 6 July 2015 and that he is no longer in Australia.  The first respondent moves to have the application dismissed under rule 13.03C for want of appearance.  I am satisfied that this is an appropriate case in which the application should be dismissed for want of appearance. 

3. Where the Tribunal is found to have no jurisdiction there is no obligation on the Tribunal to conduct a hearing, and there is no substance in any of the grounds of the application. The application is dismissed under r.13.03C.

I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Street

Associate: 

Date:  11 August 2015