NAIQ of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 1075

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NAIQ of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 1075 NAIQ OF 2002 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS N 454 OF 2002 BRANSON J 3 SEPTEMBER 2002 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 454 OF 2002

BETWEEN: NAIQ OF 2002

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: BRANSON J

DATE OF ORDER: 23 AUGUST 2002

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 454 OF 2002

BETWEEN: NAIQ OF 2002

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: BRANSON J

DATE: 3 SEPTEMBER 2002

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 On 23 August 2002 I ordered that the application in this matter be dismissed with costs. I indicated that my reasons for so ordering would be published at a later date. These are my reasons for the orders made on that day. 2 By an application filed on 20 May 2002 the applicant sought, in effect, judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") which was handed down on 24 April 2002. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent not to grant the applicant a protection visa. 3 At a directions hearing held on 24 July 2002 the applicant, who has considerable competence in the English language, was nonetheless assisted by a Bengali interpreter. On that day the application was listed for hearing on 23 August 2002. In addition, a timetable was set for the filing and service of any amended application and evidence proposed to be relied upon and of written submissions. 4 No amended application or evidence was filed by the applicant but written submissions signed by him, which purported to expand the grounds upon which the applications were made, were received by the Court on 19 August 2002. 5 At hearing the applicant again had the assistance of an interpreter. Shortly after the hearing commenced the applicant indicated that he wished to have the hearing adjourned for about eight weeks. He asserted that he had a cousin in the United States of America who until recently had been unemployed. Now that the cousin was employed he would, the applicant claimed, send money to the applicant to enable him to retain a barrister or solicitor to act for him. No evidence was presented to the Court in support of the application for an adjournment. 6 The respondent opposed the adjournment of the hearing. Mr Bromwich, counsel for the respondent, relied on the following three factors: