SZCTJ v Minister for Immigration

[2005] FMCA 325

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZCTJ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2005] FMCA 325

MIGRATION – Visa – protection visa – Refugee Review Tribunal – application for review of decision of the RRT affirming a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant the Applicant a protection visa – non-compliance.

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s.39B
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.475A
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), Rr.13.03(2)(b), 31.02(a)

Applicant: SZCTJ

Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File No: SYG 432 of 2004

Delivered on: 1 February 2005

Delivered at: Sydney South

Hearing date: 1 February 2005

Judgment of: Nicholls FM

REPRESENTATION

Applicant: In person

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Gazi

Solicitors for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

1. That the application is dismissed.

2. That the Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $2,000.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 432 of 2004

SZCTJ

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Revised from Transcript)

Application

1. This is an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal made on 19^th December 2003 and handed down 16^th January 2004. In that decision the Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant a protection visa to the Applicant.

2. The Applicant filed an application for review of that decision on 19^th February 2004.

3. At the Directions Hearing held on 23^rd June 2004, the Court ordered the Applicant to file and serve an amended application, setting out in full the grounds relied upon, together with any affidavit material to be relied upon, by 10^th September 2004.

4. The Applicant has not filed any amended application.

5. The Respondent of this Court applied to have the matter placed in a non-compliance list. The Respondent seeks that the application should be dismissed under Rule 13.03(2)(b) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules because of the Applicant’s failure to comply with the directions of the Court.

6. The Applicant has appeared at Court today. He is not legally represented. He was, however, allocated a legal adviser under the Court’s Legal Advice Scheme.

7. The application does not set out any grounds for judicial review. It just consists of a narrative of the Applicant’s reasons for the application for refugee status. At best, they are an outline of the matters that have been before the Tribunal.

8. The Applicant has told the Court that he did not attend the RRT hearing because he went interstate. However, I see from page 171 of the Court Book that the Applicant actually did attend the hearing. He then told the Court that he did attend the hearing.

9. What the Applicant has told the Court today is nowhere near sufficient to cause me not to make the orders that the Minister is seeking today. The application is dismissed pursuant to rule 13.03(2) (b).

10. The Minister’s representative has asked me to make an order that the applicant pay the Minister’s costs in responding to the application. The second thing that she has asked is that the amount of the costs be set in the amount of $2,000.00.

11. I have given the applicant the opportunity to address me on the issue of costs. I think it is reasonable that I make an order for costs and I think that $2,000.00 is a reasonable amount in the circumstances.

I certify that the preceding eleven (11) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Nicholls FM

Associate: V Lee 

Date:  21 March 2005