SZIII v Minister for Immigration

[2006] FMCA 933

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZIII v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2006] FMCA 933

MIGRATION – Visa – protection visa – Refugee Review Tribunal – application for review of decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal affirming a decision of a delegate of the Minister no to grant a protection visa to the applicant – where applicant is a citizen of Japan claiming a fear of persecution for reason of being a victim of a protection racket – where applicant did not attend Tribunal hearing – where insufficient information provided – where applicant did not attend Federal Magistrates Court hearing.

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

Applicant: SZIII

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 450 of 2006

Judgment of: Scarlett FM

Hearing date: 15 June 2006

Date of Last Submission: 15 June 2006

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 15 June 2006

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant: No appearance

Solicitors for the Respondents: Sparke Helmore

ORDERS

1. The application is dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03A 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 $3,100.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 450 of 2006

SZIII

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Application

1. This is an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal which was made on 13^th January 2006 and handed down on 24^th January 2006.  The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate of the minister refusing the applicant a protection (Class XA) visa. 

2. The applicant filed an application for judicial review in this court on 13^th February 2006.  That application came before the court for the first time on the 1^st May 2006, and was listed for hearing on 1^st June.  Unfortunately his application was not able to be heard that morning, due to judicial unavailability and was adjourned until 2 pm today for final hearing.  The applicant has not attended. 

3. I stood the matter down in the list and he was called again at 2.29 pm.  In the meantime, my associate made the appropriate checks to see if the applicant had attended at the court at Queens Square by mistake, or if any fax or telephone message had been received from the applicant or for someone on his behalf, indicating that he was injured or ill or otherwise hindered or delayed in reaching the court.  No message has been received; the applicant just has not appeared. 

4. Whilst it was unfortunate that the matter could not be heard on the earlier occasion, I note that when the matter came back to court and was listed for hearing today that the applicant did attend in person, as did Ms Gray, the solicitor for the respondent, who is here today. 

   
   

   It appears to me for there to be no reason why I should not dismiss the application for non-attendance of the applicant under the provisions of Rule 13.03A(c) as requested by the solicitor for the respondent. 

5. As the applicant has not attended without explanation I propose to do just that.

6. There is an application for costs on behalf of the first respondent minister in the sum of $3,100.00.  The respondents have had to prepare the matter for final hearing, and from my view of the file have certainly done so.  It is appropriate to make an order for costs in favour of the first respondent, and it is appropriate to make an order in the sum of $3,100.00 which is sought and I take into account the necessity for the earlier appearance.

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

Associate:  S.Polley

Date:  28 June 2006