SZTGF v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

[2019] FCA 1359

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZTGF v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 1359

Appeal from:	SZTGF v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2017] FCCA 2906
File number(s):	NSD 2230 of 2017
Judge(s):	ABRAHAM J
Date of judgment:	13 August 2019
Legislation:	Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 36.75(1)(a)(i)
Date of hearing:	13 August 2019
Registry:	New South Wales
Division:	General Division
National Practice Area:	Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Category:	No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	5
Counsel for the Appellant:	The Appellant did not appear
Counsel for the First Respondent:	Mr G Johnson
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Counsel for the Second Respondent:	The Second Respondent filed a submitting notice, save as to costs

ORDERS

NSD 2230 of 2017

BETWEEN:

SZTGF

Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE:	ABRAHAM J
DATE OF ORDER:	13 AUGUST 2019

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed under r 36.75(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

2.The appellant is to pay the first respondent’s costs as agreed or assessed.

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

ABRAHAM J:

1. In this matter, the appellant appeals from a decision of the Federal Circuit Court, delivered on 8 December 2017, which dismissed his application for judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal), the second respondent, made on 24 June 2016. The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the appellant Protection (Class XA) visa.

2. This appeal was listed for hearing on 13 August 2019 at 10.15 am. The appellant did not appear at the hearing.

3. The first respondent made an application for the proceedings to be dismissed pursuant to rule 36.75(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), which relevantly provides that if an appellant is absent when an appeal is called on for hearing the opposing party may apply to the Court for an order that the appeal be dismissed.

4. The first respondent read an affidavit for the purposes of the application which establishes that the appellant is no longer in Australia, having departed voluntarily on 10 December 2018. The appellant had held a Bridging visa, which ceased to exist on 2 March 2015. The Department records also establish that the appellant does not currently hold any visa which would permit him re-entry into Australia.

5. In all the circumstances, the appropriate course is to dismiss the appeal given the appellant’s absence, pursuant to rule 36.75(1)(a)(i). The first respondent also sought an order that the appellant pay the Minister’s costs. I make that order.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Abraham.

Associate:

Dated:       13 August 2019