SZIQO v Minister for Immigration

[2006] FMCA 1477

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZIQO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2006] FMCA 1477

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 citizen of Pakistan claiming fear of persecution – where applicant did not attend RRT hearing – where applicant did not attend Court – application dismissed for non-attendance.

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s.39B
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.476
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 r.13.03A

Applicant: SZIQO

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File number: SYG 1046 of 2006

Judgment of: Scarlett FM

Hearing date: 28 September 2006

Date of last submission: 28 September 2006

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 28 September 2006

REPRESENTATION

Applicant: No Appearance

Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms Rose

Solicitors for the Respondent: Phillips Fox

ORDERS

1. The Application is dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03A (c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001due to the non-appearance by the Applicant.

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

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 1046 of 2006

SZIQO

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal, which was signed on 3^rd March and handed down on

   
   

   23^rd March 2006.  The Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant the Applicant a Protection Visa.

2. The Applicant filed an application on 6^th April 2006 seeking review of that decision by means of constitutional writs. The application came before this Court on 22^nd May, where the Applicant appeared in person.  I listed the application for Final Hearing at 2:00pm today and ordered an interpreter in the Urdu language.

3. The Applicant filed an amended application on 23^rd June 2006 but has not communicated with the Court since then. The Applicant did not attend Court on the hearing today. He was called at 2:04pm and did not appear. I stood the matter down and made inquiries to see if the Applicant had either gone to the Court in Queens Square by mistake or telephoned the Court to advise that he had been delayed or prevented from attending Court. 

4. No message has been received from the Applicant or from anyone on his behalf. No medical certificate has been faxed to the Court indicating that the Applicant is ill or injured.  The solicitor for the First Respondent Minister, Ms Rose, has informed the Court she has not received any message, either directly or from her office, indicating that the Applicant was on his way or had somehow been prevented or hindered from attending Court. 

5. There is no explanation for the Applicant's absence.  I am satisfied that he was aware of the time, date and place of the hearing, as he attended Court before me on 22^nd May 2006. 

6. There is now an application that I should dismiss the Applicant's application under the provisions of Rule 13.03A(c) due to the non-appearance by the Applicant at the hearing. I propose to grant that application.

7. The solicitor for the First Respondent also seeks an order for costs. 

   
   

   It appears to me to be reasonable that in the circumstances, where the Respondent has prepared the matter for hearing and has attended on time ready to defend the application, that a costs order should be made.  The amount sought is $2,000.00, which is a modest sum if I may say so. I am quite satisfied from material before me that the First Respondent's lawyers have indeed prepared the matter for hearing and they are ready to deal with the matter on a defended basis if the Applicant were to attend. Unfortunately, the Applicant has just not appeared.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM

Associate:  V. Lee

Date:  5 October 2006