SZFHJ v Minister for Immigration

[2005] FMCA 1444

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZFHJ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2005] FMCA 1444

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 – applicant a citizen of China – credibility – bias – false documents – where RRT obtained reports from DIMIA document examination section saying that some of the applicant’s documents were not legitimately issued to the applicant – where the applicant did not attend court on the hearing date.

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s.39B.
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.424A, 475A.
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, Rule 13.03A.

Applicant: SZFHJ

First Respondent:

Second Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File No: SYG 3705 of 2004

Delivered on: 23 September 2005

Delivered at: Sydney

Hearing date: 23 September 2005

Judgment of: Scarlett FM

REPRESENTATION

Applicant: No Appearance

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Mantziaris

Solicitors for the Respondent: Blake Dawson Waldron

ORDERS

1. The Application is dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03A (c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules2001 due to the absence of the Applicant from the Hearing.

2. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $3,500.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 3705 of 2004

SZFHJ

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal which was made on 29^th October 2004 and handed down on

   
   

   23^rd November 2004. The Tribunal held a hearing on 28^th June 2004, at which the Applicant attended and gave oral evidence.

2. The decision of the Tribunal was to affirm the decision of the delegate of the Minister not to grant a protection visa to the Applicant.

3. The Applicant has filed an application seeking a review of that decision.  He filed an Amended Application on 4^th April 2005 setting out what he said were his grounds and particulars of those grounds. The application was listed for final hearing at 10:15am today. The Applicant has not appeared. He was first called at 10:35am and then called at 10:50am.  There was no reply to the call in each case.  In my view there is no purpose in adjourning the matter or leaving it in the list any further.

4. I note that the Respondent’s solicitors served a copy of the Respondent Minister's outline of submissions on the Applicant at his last known address on 19th of this month.  The documents were sent by courier.

5. The letter reminded the Applicant that he had to attend the hearing on 23 September 2005 at 10:15am, Federal Magistrates Court located at the John Maddison Tower, 88 Goulburn Street, Sydney. In my view the Applicant has been given notice of the hearing; he has been reminded of the hearing and he has not attended. 

6. This is a suitable matter for the Court to dismiss the application under the provisions of Rule 13.03A(c) and there is also an application for costs.

7. The Respondent Minister seeks costs fixed in the sum of $3,500 inclusive of counsel's fees which is to my mind a commendably modest amount, well within the scale provided by the Court Rules.  I have no hesitation in awarding that amount.

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

Associate:  Virginia Lee

Date:  4 October 2005