SZJKR v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2007] FCA 1353

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZJKR v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1353

SZJKR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD638 OF 2007

SPENDER J
14 AUGUST 2007
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD638 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

SZJKR
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	SPENDER J
DATE OF ORDER:	14 AUGUST 2007
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application, fixed in the sum of $1,500.00

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD638 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

SZJKR
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	SPENDER J
DATE:	14 AUGUST 2007
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In the light of the non-appearance of the applicant, I propose to dismiss the application for non-prosecution. 

2. I have read the outline of written submissions by the first respondent and I have read the reasons for judgment of Driver FM.  His Honour considered the three grounds of review contained in the applicant’s amended application, filed 21 December 2006. 

3. In relation to those matters, his Honour found that the particulars of the alleged breach of s 424A Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) related to information contained in the applicant’s passport and that information was presented by the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) to the applicant at the hearing. It was therefore within the exception in subparagraph (3)(b) of s 424A.

4. Driver FM also found that there was no breach of s 425 of the Act made out by the claim by the applicant that he was too nervous to give evidence, and thus there was no support in the available materials for the claim that he did not have a reasonable opportunity to present his claims and participate in the hearing.

5. There is no jurisdictional error apparent on the reasons for judgment of Driver FM.  I am satisfied that no error attends his Honour’s decision to dismiss the application with costs. 

6. In relation to the application for leave to appeal there is a need for “special reasons” to grant the necessary extension of time.  The material does not provide any basis on which leave should be granted.  In any event, the prospects of success on the material before the Court are so small that the grant of leave would be futile. 

7. In those circumstances and on the merits, it is also appropriate to order that the application be dismissed with costs.

8. I order that the application be dismissed, and the applicant pay the first respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application, which I fix in the amount of $1,500.00

I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Spender.

Associate:

Dated:         29 August 2007

No appearance by the Applicant.
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	14 August 2007
Date of Judgment:	14 August 2007