SZFJB v Minister for Immigration
[2005] FMCA 585
•13 May 2005
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZFJB & ANOR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION | [2005] FMCA 585 |
| MIGRATION – Review of decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal – non compliance of Court orders – no arguable grounds – application dismissed. |
| Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s.39B Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.475A |
| Applicant: | SZFJB & SZFJC |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
| File Number: | SYG 3792 of 2004 |
| Judgment of: | Pascoe CFM |
| Hearing date: | 13 May 2005 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 13 May 2005 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Nil |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Nil |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Nil |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Blake Dawson Waldron |
ORDERS
That the applicant’s application be dismissed.
That the primary applicant pay the respondents costs fixed in the sum of $2000.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 3792 of 2004
| SZFJB & SZFJC |
Applicants
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
These proceedings come before the Court pursuant to s.39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) and s.475A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The applicant who is a citizen of Indonesia seeks review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) handed down on 9 April 1998 affirming the decision of the Minister’s delegate not to grant a protection visa.
The applicants are mother and daughter. The applicant mother was born in Indonesia on 3 December 1960. She arrived in Australia on a visitor’s visa on 14 May 1993.
In Australia the applicant met and married her spouse. He is not an applicant in these proceedings.
On 29 April 1997 the applicant lodged an application for a protection visa with the then Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs.
On 17 May 1997 the Department refused the application for
a protection visa and on 21 June 1997 the applicant sought review of the delegate’s decision with the Tribunal.
On 9 April 1998 the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate not to grant to the applicant and her daughter a protection visa.
On 2 February 2005 the applicant attended a Directions Hearing with the assistance of a solicitor and interpreter and signed Consent Minutes which became orders of the Court. Those orders required the applicant to file and serve an amended application giving complete particulars of each ground of review which she intended to rely upon at the hearing by no later than 31 March 2005. I note that no amended application complete with particulars was filed by the due date.
In a letter dated 22 April 2005 the respondent’s solicitor notified the Court that an amended application had not been filed and served in accordance with the orders of 2 February 2005 and requested that the matter be listed in a non-compliance list before me seeking that the application be summarily dismissed.
On 12 May 2005 the applicant filed and served an amended application together with an affidavit. The applicant stated in her affidavit the reasons behind the lateness of her amended application was to gather evidence to support her application for review.
The grounds the applicant presses in her amended application are:
a)That Tribunal erred in it’s decision as it did not have the relevant material to sufficiently review the application for a protection visa; and
b)Insufficient time was given to the applicant to lodge all her relevant material at the time of the hearing at the Tribunal therefore denying the applicant natural justice.
Today the applicant has appeared before me unrepresented. The respondents seek that the application be summarily dismissed.
The applicant has not satisfied me that in the 7 years before the time the decision was handed down and today she has been able to obtain the information she now tells me she wishes time elucidate. She has not placed on affidavit any evidence as to what this information might be or where it might come from. She has told me that she did not know what was in the affidavit she did swear but she swore it. This application is woefully delayed and is of no utility. I cannot accede to it.
As the applicant has been wholly unsuccessful in this application I propose to order that she pay costs in the sum of $2000 in favour of the respondent.
I certify that the preceding eleven (11) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Pascoe CFM
Associate: Peter Smith
Date: 13 May 2005
0
0
2