NALZ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 754

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NALZ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 754 NALZ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS N 385 OF 2003 GYLES J SYDNEY 26 JUNE 2003

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 385 OF 2003

BETWEEN: NALZ

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: GYLES J

DATE OF ORDER: 26 JUNE 2003

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The motion be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the motion. 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 385 OF 2003

BETWEEN: NALZ

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: GYLES J

DATE: 26 JUNE 2003

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 In this matter the application for review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal was filed on 25 March 2003. The first directions hearing was held on 17 April. At that time the question of possible transfer to the Federal Magistrate's Court was raised and the applicant indicated an objection to that course. A provisional timetable was worked out on the basis that if the matter were referred to the Federal Magistrate's Court over the objection of the applicant the matter would be listed for hearing on 19 November 2003. As I was able to hear the case myself prior to that date, and in view of the position taken by the applicant, I deemed it appropriate not to transfer the matter but to list it for hearing on 1 August 2003. 2 The applicant wishes to retain the date of 19 November in order to organise funds to retain a lawyer to argue his application. He gives evidence as to his family position which indicates that he has little ability to obtain spare cash. The applicant arrived in Australia on 14 September 2000 and the original application for a protection visa was made in October 2000. His application for a protection visa was refused by a delegate of the Minister on 4 April 2001 and he applied for review of that decision on 24 April 2001. The position is that the applicant has had many months since the Refugee Review Tribunal decision and a much greater time prior to that within which to organise legal advice if he is able to do so. The evidence is that he was not willing to participate in the court legal advice scheme. No case in my opinion has been made for adjournment of the matter for the reasons which he advances and the motion is therefore dismissed. 3 I order that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of this motion. I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Gyles.