Specialist in Australian Immigration, Migration Consultant and Online Australian Visa Assessment Service.
Australian Immigration Specialists - Australian Immigration Consultants Online Australian Visa Assessments for immigration to Australia
  Research Home

Categories
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Federal Court
Federal Magistrates Court
Full Federal Court
High Court
Migration Review Tribunal
Other Jurisdictions
Refugee Review Tribunal
Recently Added
Re Patterson; Ex parte Taylor [2001] HCA 51 (6 September 2001)
Singh v Commonwealth of Australia [2004] HCA 43 (9 September 2004)
Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal; Lie v Refugee Review Tribunal [2002] HCA 30

"Use the Migration Specialists that migration agents use"
Cases

1 In this matter, the Court received a facsimile from the appellant, seeking an adjournment of today’s hearing on the basis of ill health. In reply, the Court sent a letter to the appellant’s address for service, by courier, which stated that the appellant should not presume that the Court would be prepared to adjourn today’s hearing. There has, however, been no appearance by the appellant.

2 The Court has considered an application for dismissal of the appeal, pursuant to Order 52 rule 38A of the Federal Court Rules. In the circumstances, having regard to the contents of the submissions by counsel for the respondent, and having read the reasons for decision of the Court below, and of the Refugee Review Tribunal, the Court considers it appropriate that the matter be dismissed with costs for non-appearance, and also because there is simply no basis shown or raised in the Notice of Appeal that could warrant the upholding of the appeal.

NAQZ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2

NAQZ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 115 (4 May 2004)
Last Updated: 7 May 2004

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA


NAQZ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 115
























NAQZ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
N 1997 OF 2003





TAMBERLIN, SACKVILLE AND STONE JJ
SYDNEY
4 MAY 2004

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 1997 OF 2003


ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA


BETWEEN: NAQZ
APPELLANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGES: TAMBERLIN, SACKVILLE AND STONE JJ
DATE OF ORDER: 4 MAY 2004
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY


THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal is dismissed with costs.





Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 1997 OF 2003


ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA


BETWEEN: NAQZ
APPELLANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT


JUDGES: TAMBERLIN, SACKVILLE AND STONE JJ
DATE: 4 MAY 2004
PLACE: SYDNEY


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

1 In this matter, the Court received a facsimile from the appellant, seeking an adjournment of today’s hearing on the basis of ill health. In reply, the Court sent a letter to the appellant’s address for service, by courier, which stated that the appellant should not presume that the Court would be prepared to adjourn today’s hearing. There has, however, been no appearance by the appellant.

2 The Court has considered an application for dismissal of the appeal, pursuant to Order 52 rule 38A of the Federal Court Rules. In the circumstances, having regard to the contents of the submissions by counsel for the respondent, and having read the reasons for decision of the Court below, and of the Refugee Review Tribunal, the Court considers it appropriate that the matter be dismissed with costs for non-appearance, and also because there is simply no basis shown or raised in the Notice of Appeal that could warrant the upholding of the appeal.

3 The order of the Court is that the appeal is dismissed with costs.









I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justices Tamberlin, Sackville and Stone.



Associate:

Dated: 7 May 2004



The Appellant did not appear.




Counsel for the Respondent: T Reilly



Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor



Date of Hearing: 4 May 2004



Date of Judgment: 4 May 2004
Australia Immigration Consultants and Online Australia Visa Assessments for immigration to Australia