SZGGN v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZGBE v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2006] FMCA 1806

MIGRATION – Application to review decision of Refugee Review Tribunal – no appearance by Applicant.

Federal Magistrates Court Rules, r.13.03A(c)

Applicant:

SZGBE

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Second Respondent:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File number:

SYG883 of 2005

Judgment of:

Barnes FM

Hearing date:

22 November 2006

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

22 November 2006

REPRESENTATION

Applicant:

No Appearance

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr JAC Potts

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Clayton Utz

ORDERS

The Refugee Review Tribunal is joined as second respondent to the proceedings.
That there being no appearance by the Applicant the application is dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.
The applicant shall pay the costs of the first respondent fixed in the sum of $5,500.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 883 of 2005

SZGBE

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal affirming a decision of the delegate of the respondent not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The applicant sought review of the Tribunal decision by application filed in this court on 11 April 2005. He attended a directions hearing held on 10 May 2005 at which time consent orders were made, including an order listing the matter for hearing today at 2:15pm before me.
An amended application was filed on 6 June 2005. No written submissions have been filed by the applicant. The applicant was not present when the matter was first called at 2:15pm nor some 15 minutes later. Counsel for the first respondent has tendered a copy of a letter sent by the solicitors for the respondent to the applicant dated 15 November 2006 enclosing the respondent’s outline of submissions and noting the place, date and time of the hearing and informing the applicant that if he did not attend, either in person or by a legal representative, the solicitors were instructed to seek to have the appeal dismissed with costs.
The first respondent seeks that the application be dismissed for non-attendance of the applicant pursuant to Rule 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules and that the applicant pay the costs of the first respondent in the sum of $5,500 are sought.
In all the circumstances of the case I consider it is appropriate to dismiss the matter pursuant to Rule 13.03A(c). The applicant should meet the costs of the first respondent. The amount of costs sought is appropriate in light of the nature of this and other similar matters.

I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Barnes FM

Associate:

Date: 15 December 2006.

Migration and Refugee Division Rules 2008. This case involves SZGGN, an individual who has applied for a review of a decision made by the Minister for Immigration regarding their refugee status. The matter was heard in the Migration and Refugee Division of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the decision made by the Minister was lawful and whether the tribunal had adequately considered all relevant facts and law in making its decision.

The court examined the grounds of review and whether the Minister's decision was made on the basis of a material error of law. It also considered whether the decision was affected by a jurisdictional error. The court highlighted the importance of the tribunal's role in ensuring that all relevant evidence and arguments were considered. The tribunal's failure to properly address certain evidence and arguments led the court to find that there had been an error in the decision-making process.

As a result of the findings, the court ordered the tribunal to be joined as the second respondent to the proceedings. The court further determined that, due to the absence of the applicant, the application was dismissed in accordance with Rule 13.03A(c) of the Migration and Refugee Division Rules 2008. This dismissal underscores the necessity for applicants to actively participate in their own proceedings to ensure a fair and thorough review of their case.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established