Verma v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

[2015] FCA 194

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Verma v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 194

Citation:	Verma v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 194
Appeal from:	Application for extension of time: Verma v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2014] FCCA 1687
Parties:	MANOJ VERMA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION and MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL
File number:	SAD 257 of 2014
Judge:	ALLSOP CJ
Date of judgment:	5 March 2015
Legislation:	Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 23, 25 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)
Date of hearing:	5 March 2015
Place:	Adelaide
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	5
Counsel for the Applicant:	The applicant did not appear
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Mr P d’Assumpcao of the Australian Government Solicitor
Counsel for the Second Respondent:	The second respondent submitted save as to costs

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	SAD 257 of 2014

BETWEEN:

MANOJ VERMA
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION
First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	ALLSOP CJ
DATE OF ORDER:	5 MARCH 2015
WHERE MADE:	ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for extension of time be dismissed with costs.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	SAD 257 of 2014

BETWEEN:

MANOJ VERMA
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION
First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	ALLSOP CJ
DATE:	5 MARCH 2015
PLACE:	ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for an extension of time in which to file and serve a notice of appeal from orders of the Federal Circuit Court dismissing an application to set aside a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal.  It is unnecessary to traverse the underlying visa claim and the reasons of the Circuit Court judge.  The reason I say that is that the application for an extension of time today, when called on, was not supported by the presence of the applicant.  I have not had the matter called outside on the basis that the evidence before me of a solicitor from the Australian Government Solicitor, Ms Greenslade, is that on 27 January of this year the applicant departed Australia.  The affidavit does not expressly say so, but I take it from the totality of the affidavit that the departure was voluntary and not a deportation. 

2. In those circumstances, that is, his departure from the country, his subclass 020 visa, being a bridging visa, ceased on that date. He has not been granted a further visa which would permit him lawfully to re-enter Australia. Thus, the application has no one in the country who is available to support it. The submissions of Mr d’Assumpcao dealt with the rules and the authority of the Court to dismiss appeals. The matter is an application for an extension of time. In my view, it should be dismissed for want of prosecution, if necessary, under ss 23 and 25 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) or pursuant to the Court’s authority to protect its own processes.

3. If it be the case that the applicant wishes, in some fashion, to seek to propound his application from overseas (if that be possible and if he has any interest) he can make an application to the Court in that regard. That application, whether good or bad, can be dealt with on its merits. 

4. I would also say that the order today is made in his absence and, therefore, he would have a right under the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), if otherwise having standing, to seek to set today’s order aside. That said, such application would have to have utility and be shown to have utility.

5. In all the circumstances, it is appropriate to dismiss the application for an extension of time for want of prosecution, which I do.  The application for an extension of time is dismissed with costs.

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

Associate:

Dated:        10 March 2015