SINGH v Minister for Immigration

[2015] FCCA 1464

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SINGH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2015] FCCA 1464

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Migration Review Tribunal – Partner (temporary) (class UK) visa – impermissible challenge to the adverse findings of fact – no jurisdictional error.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Summary dismissal – proceedings summarily dismissed.

Legislation: 
Federal Circuit Court Act 1999, s.17A
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001, r.13.10

Migration Act 1958, s.476

Spencer v the Commonwealth of Australia (2010) 241 CLR 118

Applicant: MANDEEP SINGH

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 1065 of 2015

Judgment of: Judge Street

Hearing date: 28 May 2015

Date of Last Submission: 28 May 2015

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 28 May 2015

REPRESENTATION

There was no appearance by the applicant

Solicitors for the Respondent: Ms S. Given
Sparke Helmore

ORDERS

1. The application for leave be dismissed.

2. The proceedings be summarily dismissed.

3. The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $1367.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT SYDNEY

SYG 1065 of 2015

MANDEEP SINGH

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for a Constitutional writ within the Court’s jurisdiction under s.476 of the Migration Act 1958 in respect of a decision of the Tribunal not to grant the applicant a Partner (temporary) (class UK) visa made on 12 March 2015.  The application identifies the following ground:

   We are not satisfied with the decision of the MRT.

2. The ground is patently deficient and hopeless.

3. The application is one in respect of which the applicant requires an extension of time.  An application for an extension of time requires that there be a satisfactory explanation, and none is proffered. Secondly, such an application requires sufficient prospects of success that it is in the interests of the administration of justice that there be an extension of time.  As the application in the present case is clearly hopeless, there is no merit in the application for an extension of time.

4. The matter was listed at 9.30 am.  It is now 10.30 am.  The matter has been called outside the Court and the applicant has failed to appear.  This is an application in which it is appropriate to summarily dismiss under s.17A (Federal Circuit Court Act 1999) and r.13.01 (Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001) in the context of the default of appearance.  I take into consideration in respect of the Court’s summary dismissal powers under s.17A and r.13.01 the principles and caution identified in Spencer v the Commonwealth of Australia (2010) 241 CLR 118, at [24]-[25] and [59]-[60].. The application for leave is dismissed.

I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Street

Associate: 

Date:  3 June 2015