SZFUX v Minister for Immigration

[2006] FMCA 466

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZFUX v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2006] FMCA 466

MIGRATION – Visa – protection visa – Refugee Review Tribunal – application for review of RRT decision affirming decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant a protection visa – applicant is a citizen of People’s Republic of China claiming fear of persecution as a Falun Gong practitioner – applicant did not attend RRT hearing – where applicant did not attend court.

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s.39B
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss.425, 426A

Applicant: SZFUX

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File No: SYG 545 of 2005

Delivered on: 16 March 2006

Delivered at: Sydney

Hearing date: 16 March 2006

Judgment of: Scarlett FM

REPRESENTATION

Applicant: No Appearance

Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms Rose

Solicitors for the Respondent: Phillips Fox

ORDERS

1. I vacate the hearing date of 12 September 2006 at 2:15pm.

2. The Application is dismissed for non-attendance by the Applicant pursuant to Rule 13.03A of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.

3. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent Minister’s costs fixed in the sum of $1,520.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 545 of 2005

SZFUX

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 by the Refugee Review Tribunal. The Tribunal signed its decision on 30^th December 2004 and handed the decision down on 28^th January 2005. The Tribunal dealt with the application under the provisions of s.426A of the Migration Act because the Applicant did not attend the Tribunal hearing.

2. The Tribunal had written to the Applicant inviting her to attend the hearing as required by s.425 of the Migration Act and that letter was written on 28^th January 2005. The Applicant in fact elected not to attend the Tribunal hearing.

3. The Applicant seems to have elected not to attend Court today. It is now well after the hour of 10:00am, it is 10:37am. The Applicant was called at 10:10am and 10:25am and 10:30am. No telephone message or faxed medical certificate has been received and brought to my attention indicating that the Applicant has been hindered, delayed or prevented from attending Court. There is just no explanation given as to why the Applicant is not here.

4. There seems to me to be no point in leaving this matter in the list any further. I vacate the hearing date of 12^th September 2006.

5. I dismiss the application for non-attendance by the Applicant, under the provisions of Rule 13.03A.

6. There is an application for costs. The amount sought is well within the scale provided by the Federal Magistrates Court Rules. There is no reason why an order for costs should not be given and the amount sought is certainly reasonable.

I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM

Associate:  Virginia Lee

Date:  4 April 2006