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

MIGRATION - Application to review decision of Refugee Review Tribunal - non-appearance by Applicant.

NAYC v Minister for Immigration [2004] FMCA 828 (3 November 2004)

NAYC v Minister for Immigration [2004] FMCA 828 (3 November 2004)
Last Updated: 30 November 2004

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NAYC v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION
[2004] FMCA 828




MIGRATION - Application to review decision of Refugee Review Tribunal - non-appearance by Applicant.




Applicant:
NAYC




Respondent:


MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS




File No:


SYG361 of 2004




Delivered on:


3 November 2004




Delivered at:


Sydney




Hearing date:


3 November 2004




Judgment of:


Barnes FM




REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:


Nil




Solicitors for the Applicant:


Nil




Counsel for the Respondent:


Mr T Reilly




Solicitors for the Respondent:


Australian Government Solicitors




ORDERS

(1) That the application is dismissed.

(2) That the Applicant pay the Respondent's costs set in the amount of $4,000.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES

COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT

SYDNEY



SYG361 of 2004

NAYC



Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS





Respondent


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from transcript)

1. This is an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal handed down on 5 November 2003, affirming a decision of a delegate of the respondent not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The applicant commenced proceedings by application filed on

2 December 2003. The application does not identify any jurisdictional error, other than to state generally that the Tribunal `made an error in law having misinterpreted definition of well-founded fear'.

2. When the matter was called today the applicant was not present, despite having attended the directions hearing in which he participated with the assistance of a Russian interpreter. The applicant has not filed written submissions or had any other contact with the court.

3. An attempt was made to contact the applicant by telephone in court. There was no response to that telephone call.

4. In these circumstances I consider it appropriate that the application be dismissed in the absence of the applicant pursuant to Rule 13.03A(c).


RECORDED : NOT TRANSCRIBED

5. The respondent seeks an order that the applicant pay costs in the amount of $4,000. Bearing in mind the nature of this and other similar matters, I consider that the amount sought is appropriate.

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Barnes FM

Associate:

Date: 23 November 2004
Australia Immigration Consultants and Online Australia Visa Assessments for immigration to Australia