SZIQC v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 522

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZIQC v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 522 SZIQC v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 2422 OF 2006

BENNETT J

9 MARCH 2007

SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2422 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZIQC

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: BENNETT J DATE OF ORDER: 9 MARCH 2007

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The name of the first respondent is changed from the 'Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs' to the 'Minister for Immigration and Citizenship'. 2. Leave to appeal is granted. 3. Leave to rely on new grounds of appeal is refused. 4. The appeal is dismissed. 5. The appellant is to pay the first respondent's costs. 6. Leave is granted to the first respondent to file and serve any affidavit in support of an application for fixed costs within 7 days. 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 2422 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZIQC

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: BENNETT J

DATE: 9 MARCH 2007

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The appellant, who claims to be a citizen of the People's Republic of China, applied for a protection (class XA) visa in March 2000. A Delegate of the Minister refused to grant that visa and the appellant applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal for review of the Delegate's decision. An invitation to attend a hearing scheduled for 27 February 2001 was sent by registered post to the appellant's nominated contact address and to his migration adviser by the Tribunal. Receipt of that invitation is not disputed. The appellant responded to the invitation in a document signed by him ('the response'). In answer to the question 'do you want to come to a hearing' the appellant marked the box "No". That box also contained a statement: 'I consent to the Tribunal proceeding to make a decision on the review without taking any further action to allow or enable me to appear before it.' 2 The appellant asserts in this appeal from the Federal Magistrates Court that the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error by failing to reschedule the hearing or delay its decision in order to enable the appellant to appear before it.