Golovcenco v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 200

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Golovcenco v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 200 ALEXEI GOLOVCENCO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS Q 3 OF 2004 DOWSETT J 2 MARCH 2004 BRISBANE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY Q 3 OF 2004

BETWEEN: ALEXEI GOLOVCENCO

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: DOWSETT J

DATE OF ORDER: 2 MARCH 2004

WHERE MADE: BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY Q 3 OF 2004

BETWEEN: ALEXEI GOLOVCENCO

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: DOWSETT J

DATE: 2 MARCH 2004

PLACE: BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This purports to be an application for relief pursuant to s 39B of the Judiciary Act (1903) Commonwealth. However there is no prayer for relief. At a previous directions hearing, the applicant indicated that his concern was to compel the Minister for Immigration to remove him from Australia. It seems that some difficulty has been encountered in finding a destination which will accept him. I assume, although the evidence may not go so far, that he has previously unsuccessfully sought permanent residence in Australia. 2 On the last occasion on which the matter was before the Court for directions, I adjourned it until today in the expectation that the Minister would file an objection to competency. She has done so. The applicant has not appeared today. His application may therefore be struck out pursuant to O 10 r 3. In any event, the application is bad on its face and an abuse of process. The absence of any prayer for relief might be remediable, but the nature of the proceedings, as explained by the applicant at the previous hearing, would not lead to any available relief. 3 The applicant holds a bridging visa which is valid until the end of this month. The only section of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) which appears to have any potential relevance is s 198 which provides for removal of unlawful non-citizens from Australia where such person asks the Minister that he be so removed. It is impossible to characterize the applicant as being an unlawful non-citizen, for he holds a bridging visa. In those circumstances, and in the absence of any appearance by the applicant today, the application will be dismissed. 4 I order that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings. I should add that the applicant was given notice of the respondent's intention to object to competency at the hearing today.