SZINH v Minister for Immigration
[2006] FMCA 685
•1 May 2006
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZINH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2006] FMCA 685 |
| 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 – application is a citizen of India – where applicant did not attend Federal Magistrates Court hearing. |
| Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s.39B Migration Act 1958 (Cth) |
| Applicant: | SZINH |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 811 of 2006 |
| 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 |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Sparke Helmore |
ORDERS
The application is dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03A(c) due to the non-appearance by the Applicant at Court.
The Applicant is to pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $1,000.00.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 811 of 2006
| SZINH |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Application
This is an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal. The application was filed on 20th March 2006 and the respondent Minister’s filed a notice of appearance and a response.
The applicant has not appeared and no message has been received from the applicant explaining why there is no appearance or what the applicant has been delayed. I see no reason to leave the matter in the list any further.
There is an application for costs in the sum of $1,000.00 on behalf of the first respondent Minister. The Minister has had to instruct solicitors to act and prepare the appropriate response. I see no reason why I should not make a costs order and I also consider that the sum of $1,000.00 is appropriate.
I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM
Associate: S.Polley
Date: 10 May 2006
0
0
2