SZTQU v Minister for Immigration

[2014] FCCA 3189

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZTQU v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2014] FCCA 3189

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

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.476

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), rr.13.03C, 44.12

Applicant: SZTQU

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 3086 of 2013

Judgment of: Judge Nicholls

Hearing date: 28 August 2014

Date of Last Submission: 28 August 2014

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 28 August 2014

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant: No Appearance

Solicitors for the Respondents: Ms C Hillary of DLA Piper

ORDERS

1. The application made on 12 December 2013 is dismissed for non-appearance pursuant to Rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth).

2. The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs set in the amount of $2,300.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 3086 of 2013

SZTQU

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Ex tempore; Revised from Transcript)

1. I have before me today an application made on 12 December 2013 pursuant to s.476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) seeking review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal made on 21 November 2013 which affirmed the decision of the Minister’s delegate to refuse a protection visa to the applicant.

2. This matter was previously before the Court on 12 February 2014 where a number of orders were made for the progress of this case before the Court.  The applicant appeared in person on that day.  He was assisted by an interpreter in the Mandarin language.

3. Amongst those orders were that the applicant was given the opportunity to file and serve any amended application and any additional evidence by way of affidavit in support of any such application. The matter was set down for a hearing pursuant to r.44.12 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) (“the FCC Rules”) today at 10.15 am.

4. When the matter was called today there was no appearance by, or for, the applicant. The Minister sought that the application be dismissed for want of appearance pursuant to r.13.03C(1)(c) of the FCC Rules.

5. The Minister, in support of that application, tendered into evidence the document respondent’s exhibit one (“RE1”).  This is a letter from the Minister’s solicitors dated 13 February 2014 addressed to the applicant at the address for service provided by the applicant on his application to the Court.  That letter does, in effect, two things. One, reminds the applicant of Court event at 10.15 am today, and the location of the Court event. Two, the letter puts the applicant on notice that if he does not attend today that the Minister would seek to have the matter dismissed, in his absence with costs. 

6. Nothing further has been filed by the applicant in prosecution of his case following the opportunities that were provided to him at the first Court date. 

7. The applicant’s absence today remains unexplained.  There has been no application for any adjournment, nor, to the best of my knowledge, has there been any communication to the Registry of this Court that the applicant sought any adjournment or was, otherwise, unable to attend today or was delayed in attending. I should note that inquiries made to the Registry by my Associate today have revealed that the applicant did not present himself to the registry in some mistaken belief that that was the appropriate place to attend.

8. In all, therefore, it is appropriate that the matter be dismissed. I will make that order accordingly.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Nicholls

Associate: 

Date:  12 November 2015