SZSPH v Minister for Immigration

[2013] FCCA 1818

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZSPH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2013] FCCA 1818

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – No appearance.

Legislation:
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.65

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001

Applicant: SZSPH

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 320 of 2013

Judgment of: Judge Raphael

Hearing date: 31 October 2013

Date of Last Submission: 31 October 2013

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 31 October 2013

REPRESENTATION

For the Applicant: No appearance

Solicitors for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore

ORDERS

1. Application dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001.

2. Applicant to pay the First Respondent’s costs assessed in the sum of $4,000.00.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT SYDNEY

SYG 320 of 2013

SZSPH

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This proceeding involves an applicant who first entered Australia on 21 August 2007 on a Subclass 580 (student guardian) visa which expired on 22 November 2008. She remained in the country and on 3 April 2012 applied to the Department of Immigration for a protection (Class XA) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Her application was refused by a delegate of the Minister on 27 July 2012 and she sought review of that decision from the Refugee Review Tribunal.

2. The applicant did not attend before the Tribunal claiming that the day before had been too hot.  She was asked, but did not provide, a medical certificate.  On 15 January 2013 the Tribunal determined to affirm the decision under review.  On 20 February 2013 the applicant applied to this court for review of the decision of the Tribunal.  The matter came before me on 17 October 2013 for what is known as a “first court date”.  I set the matter down for hearing at 10.15a.m. on 31 October 2013.  The applicant was in attendance and was assisted by an interpreter.  She was well aware of the hearing date.  The applicant also received advice under the Minister’s scheme although she did not respond to requests for an interview with the practitioner appointed.  She was reminded of the hearing date by the respondent.  But she was not in attendance at 10.15a.m. and she was still not here when her name was called outside the court at 10.30a.m.

3. In those circumstances the Court proposes to dismiss the matter pursuant to Part 13 Rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001.  The applicant is to pay the first respondent’s costs assessed in the sum of $4,000.00.

I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Raphael

Associate: 

Date:  6 November 2013