Applicant S2018 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 689

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant S2018 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 689 APPLICANT S2018 OF 2003 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS NSD 575 OF 2005 GYLES J 13 MAY 2005 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 575 OF 2005

BETWEEN: APPLICANT S2018 OF 2003

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: GYLES J

DATE OF ORDER: 13 MAY 2005

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application for an extension of time and for leave to appeal be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs assessed at $500. 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 575 OF 2005

BETWEEN: APPLICANT S2018 OF 2003

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: GYLES J

DATE: 13 MAY 2005

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application for extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal in relation to a judgment of Federal Magistrate Scarlett (Applicant S2018 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration [2005] FMCA 239). Also, because it is out of time, leave is required. The decision of the learned Federal Magistrate was delivered on 21 February 2005 and the application was not filed until 5 April 2005. The applicant is in detention and explains that there was a problem with communication because of that. I would accept that the mere delay would not be enough to shut him out from an appeal if there is a meritorious appeal to be brought. The problem in the case is that, in order to grant leave to appeal, there must be at least an arguable point to be put before the Court if the application is granted. 2 The grounds of appeal from the learned Federal Magistrate's decision were as follows: 'In my opinion, the Honourable Magistrate Court did not look into the matter thoroughly about my case. I have well founded fear of persecution if I go back to Punjab.' and the orders sought were as follows: