SZTEG v Minister for Immigration

[2013] FCCA 2445

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZTEG v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2013] FCCA 2445

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Application for review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal – no appearance by the applicant – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.13.03C
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.476

Applicant: SZTEG

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 1838 of 2013

Judgment of: Judge Nicholls

Hearing date: 16 October 2013

Date of Last Submission: 16 October 2013

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 16 October 2013

REPRESENTATION

Applicant: No Appearance

Solicitors for the Respondents: Mr A Markus of Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

1. The application made on 7 August 2013 is dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 1838 of 2013

SZTEG

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Ex Tempore; Revised from Transcript)

1. I have before me today an application made pursuant to s.476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) on 7 August 2013, seeking review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal, made on 8 October 2012, which affirmed the decision of the Minister’s delegate to refuse the grant of a protection visa to the applicant.

2. When the matter was called today, there was no appearance by the applicant, or on behalf of the applicant. The Minister sought that the matter be dismissed pursuant to r.13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) (“the FCC Rules”).

3. Based on the notation by the Court’s Registry on the application form of the date and time of listing, I am satisfied, on what is before me, that the applicant had reasonable notice of the Court event today.

4. I also have before me the affidavit of Louise Buchanan, Solicitor, affirmed 15 October 2013. The applicant’s absence today is explained by virtue of that affidavit. That is, that the applicant has left Australia and has no authority to re-enter Australia.

5. I note that the applicant is not represented by anyone else here today. While the applicant’s absence today is explained, in the sense that the applicant is physically not in Australia, the inference is available to be drawn that the applicant does not wish to proceed with the prosecution of the application by the lack of any representation before the Court today.

6. However, given the circumstances, it is appropriate that I proceed to dismiss the application pursuant to r.13.03C(1)(c) of the FCC Rules. I will make that order.

I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Nicholls

Date: 2 December 2016