SZGXG v Minister for Immigration

[2006] FMCA 681

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZGXG v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2006] FMCA 681

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 claiming fear of persecution for reason of religion – ‘Shouters’ – credibility in issue – relocation within China considered – where applicant did not attend Federal Magistrates Court hearing.

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s.39B
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.474,475A
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 r.13.03A(c)

SAAP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] HCA 24

Applicant: SZGXG

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 2091 of 2005

Judgment of: Scarlett FM

Hearing date: 1 May 2006

Date of Last Submission: 1 May 2006

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 1 May 2006

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant: No appearance

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms McNaughton

Solicitors for the Respondent: Blake Dawson Waldron

ORDERS

1. The application is dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03A(c) due to the non-appearance by the Applicant at Court.

2. The Applicant is to pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $5,000.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 2091 of 2005

SZGXG

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

And

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Application

1. This is an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal.  The decision was made on 27^th June 2005 after hearing took place on 24^th June 2005.  The Tribunal handed down its decision on 14^th July 2005. 

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. 

   
   

   |The applicant sought a review of that decision and on

   
   

   15^th December 2005 when the matter was before me for directions I adjourned it until today for final hearing at 2.15 pm.  I note that the applicant was present in person and the matter was listed for hearing today and I ordered a Mandarin interpreter.

3. The applicant has not attended.  The applicant does not appear to have sent any message indicating why he is not here today.  Ms McNaughton of counsel for the first respondent Minster has informed me that her instructor with the assistance of the interpreter attempted to telephone the applicant at his telephone number but was unable to speak to him.  She was however able to speak to another person, who provided another telephone number.  That number was telephoned and the person there indicated that he knew of the applicant but the applicant was not present. 

4. It is quite clear to me that the applicant is not going to attend the Court today. I am asked to dismiss this matter under the provisions of r 13.03A(c) for non-attendance at the hearing by the applicant, and I propose to do that now. The application will be dismissed.

5. There is an application for costs.  The application has been prepared for hearing, counsel has been briefed and all documentation required on the part of the respondent’s case has been submitted.  I am satisfied that the lawyers for the respondent had no idea that the applicant was not going to attend Court today and indeed I am informed that they wrote to the applicant a short while ago, reminding him of today’s hearing.

6. This is a suitable matter for the award of an order for costs and the amount sought, being $5,000.00, appears to me to be an appropriate figure.  That amount of course includes counsel’s fees and it was appropriate for counsel to be briefed.

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

Associate:  S.Polley

Date:  10 May 2006