SZCQU v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2007] FCA 540

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZCQU v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 540

SZCQU v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1134 OF 2006

MADGWICK J
3 APRIL 2007
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1134 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZCQU
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE OF ORDER:	3 APRIL 2007
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of the appeal.

3.The name of the first respondent be amended to ‘Minister for Immigration and Citizenship’.

4.The Refugee Review Tribunal be joined as a second respondent.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1134 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SZCQU
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE:	3 APRIL 2007
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

MADGWICK J

1. It is accepted in this case by unfortunate counsel for the applicant, who came into the matter on an O 80 referral from the Court and prepared thoughtful submissions, that her client is out of the country and there is no evidence that he has a right to come back in.  In that circumstance he presently does not satisfy the conditions for a protection visa, which require him to be in the country, and it appears that there would be no utility in adjourning the proceedings so that he might come back in order to fulfil that condition. 

2. Although the precise details of the conditions that attach to his bridging visa, under which he was presumably in the country pending the finalisation of legal proceedings, have not been put before me, as I say, counsel for the applicant accepts that the substance of the Minister’s point, that the appeal is moot, must be conceded.  In these circumstances it would be a work of supererogation to require that the matter be nailed down as to what one might call the micro-formalities.  I accept that the appeal is moot and it should be dismissed with costs.

3. The name of the first respondent will be amended to read Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and the Refugee Review Tribunal will be added as a second respondent.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Madgwick.

Associate:

Dated:       16 April 2007

Counsel for the Appellant:	Bridie Nolan
Counsel for the First Respondent:	Justin Smith
Solicitors for the First and Second Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	3 April 2007
Date of Judgment:	3 April 2007