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.

SZBZB v Minister for Immigration [2004] FMCA 695 (30 September 2004)

SZBZB v Minister for Immigration [2004] FMCA 695 (30 September 2004)
Last Updated: 19 November 2004

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZBZB v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION
[2004] FMCA 695




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




Applicant:
SZBZB




Respondent:


MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS




File No:


SYG2535 of 2003




Delivered on:


30 September 2004




Delivered at:


Sydney




Hearing date:


30 September 2004




Judgment of:


Barnes FM




REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:


Nil




Solicitors for the Applicant:


Nil




Counsel for the Respondent:


Mr A. Potts




Solicitors for the Respondent:


Clayton Utz




ORDERS

(1) There being no appearance by the applicant the application is dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.

(2) The applicant pay the respondent's costs set in the amount of $3,000.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES

COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT

SYDNEY



SYG2535 of 2003

SZBZB



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 (the Tribunal) handed down on 28 October 2003 affirming a decision of a delegate of the respondent not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The applicant sought review of that decision by an application filed in this Court on the 21 November 2003. He attended a directions hearing held on 14 April 2004. He had the assistance of a Mandarin interpreter and the matter was listed for hearing today at 10.15 am.

2. The applicant was not present when the matter was first called or when the matter was called some 20 minutes later. He could not be contacted by telephone in the interim.

3. The respondent seeks that the application be dismissed pursuant to rule 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrate Court Rules in light of the absence of the applicant. There is no indication from the applicant as to why he is not present today. Directions were made at the directions hearing for the filing and serving of any amended application. No amended application was filed. Directions were also made for the filing and serving by the applicant of written submissions five working days prior to the hearing date. No written submissions have been filed.

4. I am satisfied that the applicant has had the opportunity to attend today and has not done so. I also note that the application is for review of a decision of the Tribunal that was made in circumstances where while the Tribunal invited the applicant to attend a hearing, it did not receive any reply to that invitation. Nor did the applicant attend the Tribunal hearing.

5. In all of the circumstances, having considered the application before me I consider it is appropriate to proceed in the manner suggested by the respondent and dismiss the application in the absence of the applicant.

6. The respondent also seeks that the applicant meet the costs of these proceedings. That is also appropriate. In the circumstances of this case having regard to the nature of this and other similar matters, costs of $3000 are appropriate.

I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Barnes FM

Associate:

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