Zaidi v Minister for Immigration (No.2)
[2005] FMCA 604
•5 May 2005
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| ZAIDI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION (No.2) | [2005] FMCA 604 |
| MIGRATION – Application to set aside a decision of the Federal Magistrates Court – where the applicant sought an order to include his family members as party to the case – where the applicant was outside of the migration zone at the time of hearing and cannot re-enter the country. |
| Zaidi v The Minister [2005] FMCA 331 |
| Applicant: | SYED SARFARAZ HUSSAIN ZAIDI |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
| File Number: | SYG 2843 of 2003 |
| Judgment of: | Raphael FM |
| Hearing date: | 5 May 2005 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 5 May 2005 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 5 May 2005 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr A Carter |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Sparke Helmore |
ORDERS
The application is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs which are assessed in the sum of $350.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 2843 of 2003
| SYED SARFARAZ HUSSAIN ZAIDI |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
On 15 April 2005 an application was lodged by Mr Zaidi seeking orders setting aside a decision, which I made on 17 March 2005, dismissing his application for review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal. My reasons for that decision are published as Zaidi v The Minister [2005] FMCA 331. The applicant also sought an order including his family members as party to the case. The applicant filed an affidavit saying:
My visa was cancelled while I was overseas. The Magistrate was informed by letter that I would not be able to come to the proceedings. I requested that hearing be deferred. No reference to this letter is made in the Magistrate's decision and so it seems that he did not take it into account. At the time of cancellation we were informed that the family would not be disadvantaged because the cancellation was due to the non‑compliance of sponsor. In the event, my family is severely disadvantaged because the family members in Australia were given bridging visas E and so they are barred from applying for anything on their behalf.
The affidavit was sworn in the city of Karachi. Today the matter was called at 9.30 am, that being the date and time for which the matter was set down. The applicant was informed of the date of the hearing by letter from my associate addressed to him at the address contained in the application form which is an address in Hornsby. There is no appearance for the applicant or any member of his family as at 9.40 am. I can make it clear that I did consider the affidavit of Mr Zaidi's son filed on 4 November 2004 and the letter written by Mr Zaidi when I made my decision in March but the fact is that he is not in the migration zone and has no authority to re-enter the country. He does not appear to have instructed legal advisor’s to appear for him and no member of his family is in court to do that. In those circumstances his application is of no utility. I am not prepared to reconsider or set aside the order which I previously made. If Mr Zaidi is not happy with this decision he is entitled to pursue his rights of appeal.
I have heard Mr Carter for the Minister in relation to costs. He indicates that he prepared for this application on the basis that the applicant might have been represented by a legal representative or even by a member of his family, which would have enabled an argument to be raised and in those circumstances I order that the applicant pay the respondent's costs which I assess in the sum of $350.
I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Raphael FM
Associate:
Date:
0