Yao v Minister for Immigration

[2006] FMCA 1799

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

YAO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2006] FMCA 1799

MIGRATION – Review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal decision – where the applicant did not attend.

Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001

Applicant: BAO CHUN YAO

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Second Respondent: MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG2577 of 2006

Judgment of: Raphael FM

Hearing date: 4 December 2006

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 4 December 2006

REPRESENTATION

No appearance for or on behalf of the Applicant

Solicitors for the Respondents: Mr A Markus
Australian Government Solicitor

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

1. The application is dismissed, pursuant to Part 13, Rule 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth).

2. The applicant is to pay the first respondent’s costs and disbursements in the sum of $1,750.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG2577 of 2006

BAO CHUN YAO

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(revised from transcript)

1. There comes before me an application to show cause in respect of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”). The matter had come before Federal Magistrate Driver on 10 October 2006 where His Honour made a number of orders in the presence of the applicant who appeared in person with a Mandarin interpreter. Those orders included an order that the applicant file and serve on the respondents any amended application and additional affidavit evidence on or before 30 November 2006 and that the matter be listed for a hearing under rule 44.12 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth) at 11.30am today. No amended application has been filed and at 11.30am today the applicant had not appeared. He had still not appeared at 11.45am when his name was called outside the court.

2. It seems clear to me that the applicant had notice of todays hearing. 

   
   

   He has not contacted the court to tell it that he is indisposed and a copy of the first respondent’s outline of submissions was sent to his address for service on 1 December 2006 although, of course, it is possible that these were not received.

3. In the circumstances it is appropriate that I should dismiss this application pursuant to Part 13, Rule 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth) and order that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs which I assess in the sum of $1,750.

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

Associate: 

Date:  13 December 2006