SZVXM v Minister for Immigration

[2016] FCCA 1782

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZVXM v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2016] FCCA 1782

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Application to review decision of Refugee Review Tribunal – no appearance by Applicant.

Applicant: SZVXM

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 3627 of 2014

Judgment of: Judge Barnes

Hearing date: 12 July 2016

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 12 July 2016

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Respondents: Clayton Utz

ORDERS

1. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal replace the Refugee Review Tribunal as the Second Respondent.

2. There being no appearance by the Applicant, the application of 24 December 2014 be dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules.

3. The Applicant pay the costs of the First Respondent fixed in the sum of $3,500.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 3627 of 2014

SZVXM

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for a review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal affirming a decision of a delegate of the First Respondent not to grant the Applicant a protection visa. 

2. The Applicant was previously legally represented.  The matter was listed for hearing today.  The Applicant was not present at the time the matter was listed for hearing and nor is he present now several minutes later.  In that regard, the First Respondent relies on an affidavit of Sebastian Weller sworn on 21 June 2016 attesting to the fact that the Applicant has departed from Australia and, at the time of the swearing of the affidavit, that he did not hold a visa permitting lawful re-entry into Australia. 

3. In these circumstances I am asked to dismiss the application for non-appearance pursuant to Rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules. I consider it is appropriate to make that order in the circumstances and also that the Applicant should meet the costs of the First Respondent. However, I consider the appropriate amount in the circumstances of this case is considerably less than the amount sought, which was the suggested scale amount in the Schedule to the Federal Circuit Court Rules. The amount of $3500 is appropriate, reasonable and consistent with the amounts more usually sought and ordered in proceedings of this nature where the Applicant has left Australia. It is also appropriate to make the order sought amending the name of the Second Respondent.

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

Date: 14 July 2016