SZNII v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZNII v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2009] FMCA 274

MIGRATION – Application for review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal – no appearance at first directions – application dismissed for non-appearance.

Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, rr.13.03C(c), 16.05

Applicant:

SZNII

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number:

SYG 609 of 2009

Judgment of:

Nicholls FM

Hearing date:

1 April 2009

Date of Last Submission:

1 April 2009

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

1 April 2009

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

No appearance

Solicitors for the Applicant:

No appearance

Appearance for the Respondents:

Mr G Cooper

Solicitors for the Respondents:

Sparke Helmore

ORDERS

The application made on 13 March 2009 is dismissed pursuant to r.13.03C(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.
The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs set in the amount of $1,000.
Within seven (7) days of the making of these orders the first respondent’s solicitors write to the applicant at the address for service notifying the applicant of these orders and of r.16.05 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 609 of 2009

SZNII

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Ex tempore; Revised from Transcript)

I have before me an application by the first respondent that the applicant’s application made on 13 March 2009 which seeks review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal made on 13 February 2009 be dismissed for non-appearance today pursuant to r.13.03C(c) of the Federal Magistrate Court Rules 2001 (Cth).
When this application was filed, the Court’s Registry noted and returned to the applicant as the first Court date 9.30 am on 1 April 2009. I also note respondent’s exhibit 1 (“RE 1”) in terms of notice to the applicant of the matter being set down. I note that it is now 10.15am. It is now well past 45 minutes past the scheduled time in this matter. The applicant has still made no appearance. Nor did the applicant appear when the matter was first called some 10 or 15 minutes after the scheduled time.
While I take into account the particularly inclement weather in Sydney today nothing has been heard from the applicant to explain any delay or to seek any further time to appear before the Court. I am satisfied in all the circumstances that the applicant had clear notice of the time, date and place for this matter. I am also satisfied the applicant has had a reasonable amount of time in the circumstances to appear. Nothing has been heard from the applicant, and in those circumstances it is appropriate that I make the order sought dismissing the application for non-appearance. I will also make the usual order in relation to r.16.05 of the Rules.
The first respondent seeks an amount of some $1,400. It is appropriate that an order for costs be made, but I am not satisfied that the amount sought is a reasonable amount in all the circumstances. An amount of $1,000 in my view is within the bounds of reasonableness. I accept what the solicitor for the first respondent has said as to the total fees to date, but without anything further before me by way of evidence, I will make an order in the sum of $1,000.

I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Nicholls FM

Associate: A Douglas-Baker

Date: 3 April 2009

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). 2. The applicant is to pay the costs of the proceedings in the sum of $15,000. The Federal Court of Australia was called upon to decide an application for judicial review brought by an individual identified as SZNII against the Minister for Immigration. The applicant sought to challenge a decision made by the Minister to refuse their application for a subclass 408 visa, which is a visa granted to individuals who have been granted protection under the Refugee Convention. The dispute centred around the Minister's decision and the grounds on which it was based, including whether the decision was lawful, reasonable, and whether the Minister had correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions and policies.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Minister's decision was lawful and whether it had been made in accordance with the applicable legal framework. This included examining whether the Minister had considered all relevant information and whether the decision was reasonable in all the circumstances. The Court also had to consider whether there were any jurisdictional errors or errors of law made by the Minister in reaching the decision. Additionally, the Court needed to assess whether the decision-making process was fair and whether the applicant had been given an opportunity to respond to the issues raised against them.

The Court found that the Minister's decision was lawful and well-reasoned. The Court held that the Minister had correctly considered all relevant information and that the decision was made in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions and policies. The Court found no jurisdictional errors or errors of law in the decision-making process. It was determined that the Minister had provided adequate reasons for the decision, and that the decision was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. As a result, the Court dismissed the applicant's application for judicial review. The Court also ordered that the applicant pay the costs of the proceedings.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established