FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Applicant NAQX of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 636 Applicant NAQX of 2002 v Minister for Immigration [2005] FMCA 340, upheld APPLICANT NAQX OF 2002 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS NSD 523 OF 2005 GYLES J 11 MAY 2005 SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 523 OF 2005 BETWEEN: APPLICANT NAQX OF 2002 APPLICANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT JUDGE: GYLES J DATE OF ORDER: 11 MAY 2005 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application. 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 NSD 523 OF 2005 BETWEEN: APPLICANT NAQX OF 2002 APPLICANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT JUDGE: GYLES J DATE: 11 MAY 2005 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application for extension of time for leave to make an application for leave to appeal, and for leave to appeal from a judgment of Raphael FM (Applicant NAQX of 2002 v Minister for Immigration [2005] FMCA 340). I do not stay to consider the question of the extension of time as I have a clear view that even if there were an extension of time, leave to appeal would not be granted. 2 The application to this Court is dated 4 April 2005. It annexes a notice of appeal which is becoming increasingly familiar to me. It is quite general, it is quite unsuitable for any notice of appeal, but obviously has some provenance among potential applicants to this Court. Whether they are paying money for it is not something that I have any information about at the moment, although the number of times I see it, or something very like it, indicates to me that it is certainly a template which is peddled about. The affidavit in support of the application is equally uninformative. 3 I have read the decision of the learned Federal Magistrate. It recites a sorry story, again increasingly familiar, so far as abuse of the system is concerned. I do not need to do more than refer to, rather than set out, that history. I need only note for these purposes that the substantive application before the Federal Magistrates Court was an application to set aside a consent judgment entered on the advice of counsel on 5 December 2002. The applicant was apparently represented at a number of steps along the way. Apparently after the consent order, he joined a High Court proceeding. He also sought to invoke the Ministerial discretion pursuant to s 417 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). 4 I should add that the essence of what was said to me today by the applicant is that he had not been able to obtain legal advice and sought some intervention by the Court to assist in that regard. All I can say is that the Court has no role to be assisting in that matter. There are various agencies which are involved in that type of assistance, and there has been ample time to deal with that matter prior to today. 5 In my opinion, the manner in which the Federal Magistrate dealt with this case is demonstrably fair and demonstrably right. There is no merit in this application. It is dismissed. I order that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application. I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Gyles. Associate: Dated: 20 May 2005 Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person Solicitor for the Respondent: Blake Dawson Waldron Date of Hearing: 11 May 2005 Date of Judgment: 11 May 2005