SZSQI v Minister for Immigration

[2013] FCCA 850

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZSQI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2013] FCCA 850

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Review of Refugee Review Tribunal decision – refusal of a protection visa – dismissal of judicial review application on account of the applicant’s non-attendance.

Legislation:
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth)

SZSQH v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2013] FCCA 817

Applicant: SZSQI

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 435 of 2013

Judgment of: Judge Driver

Hearing date: 16 July 2013

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 17 July 2013

REPRESENTATION

No appearance by or on behalf of the Applicant

Counsel for the Respondents: Ms S Given

Solicitors for the Respondents: Minter Ellison

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

1. The name of the first respondent be amended to the Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship.

2. The application is dismissed, pursuant to rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth).

3. The applicant is to pay the first respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application, fixed in the sum of $3,000.

4. The Court directs that the Minister is to arrange to have these orders entered and the Minister is to cause a sealed copy of these orders to be served on the applicant by ordinary pre-paid post at her nominated address for service, together with a copy of rule 16.05 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT SYDNEY

SYG 435 of 2013

SZSQI

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(revised from transcript)

1. I have before me an amended application filed on 21 May 2013 seeking judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (Tribunal) made on 7 February 2013.  The application is in essentially the same terms as an application I dealt with yesterday in the matter of SZSQH v Minister for Immigration & Anor[1].  The present applicant was in court yesterday for the hearing and determination of that application.  The present applicant is the partner of the applicant in yesterday’s proceeding.  Their claims before the Tribunal were materially the same, that is, they depended upon the assertion that they would be at risk of harm in India due to their mixed relationship.  The present applicant is a Sikh and her partner is a Muslim.

   [1] [2013] FCCA 817

2. I found in SZSQH that there was no arguable case of jurisdictional error by the Tribunal.  Given that the present application is the same as that in SZSQH, the applicant would probably have had difficulty in persuading me to reach a different conclusion.  Perhaps with that in mind, the applicant has not attended today.  She was aware of the need to attend court today, both because of correspondence sent to her dated 23 April 2013 by the Minister’s solicitors which was tendered before me this afternoon[2] and also because of her attendance in court yesterday.

   [2] Exhibit R1

3. The applicant has failed to appear this afternoon. The matter has been called twice. The applicant has given no explanation for her non-attendance. In the circumstances, I have concluded that the appropriate course is to dismiss the application on account of the applicant’s non-attendance pursuant to rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) (Federal Circuit Court Rules).

4. I will order that the applicant is to pay the first respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application, fixed in the sum of $3,000.

5. The Court directs that the Minister is to arrange to have these orders entered and the Minister is to cause a sealed copy of these orders to be served on the applicant by ordinary pre-paid post at her nominated address for service, together with a copy of rule 16.05 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules.

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

Associate: 

Date:  19 July 2013