SZIQW v Minister for Immigration

[2006] FMCA 762

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZIQW v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2006] FMCA 762

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 not to grant a protection visa to the applicant.

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Jurisdiction – application out of time – court has no jurisdiction – where Applicant did not attend court.

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s.39B
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s.477
Migration Litigation Reform Act 2005 (Cth) Sch. 1 Part 2

Applicant: SZIQW

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File No: SYG 1071 of 2006

Delivered on: 22 May 2006

Delivered at: Sydney

Hearing date: 22 May 2006

Judgment of: Scarlett FM

REPRESENTATION

Applicant: No Appearance

Solicitors for the Respondent: Clayton Utz

ORDERS

1. The Application is dismissed as the court has no jurisdiction.

2. 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 1071 of 2006

SZIQW

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 affirming a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant the Applicant a protection visa. The decision was handed down on

   
   

   13^th March 2002. It appears to be out of time, as the application to this court was not filed until 10^th April 2006.

2. The Applicant has not appeared at court today. She was called shortly after the appointed time of 10:00am, and again at 10:58am  She did not appear on either occasion.

3. As I note that the court appears to have no jurisdiction in any event, there appears to be little point in adjourning the matter to another day or even leaving it in the list any further. I propose to dismiss the application for want of jurisdiction.

4. The First Respondent seeks an order for costs against the Applicant in the sum of $1,000.00. I propose to make that order.

5. The application will be removed from the list of cases awaiting finalisation.

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM

Associate:  Virginia Lee

Date:  25 May 2006