SZIQF v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 1170

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZIQF v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 1170 SZIQF AND SZIQG v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 793 OF 2007

EDMONDS J

7 AUGUST 2007

SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 793 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZIQF

First Appellant

SZIQG

Second Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: EDMONDS J DATE OF ORDER: 7 AUGUST 2007

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellants pay the first respondent's costs. 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 793 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: SZIQF

First Appellant

SZIQG

Second Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: EDMONDS J

DATE: 7 AUGUST 2007

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION 1 This is an appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court (Driver FM) dismissing an application for review of a decision of the second respondent ('the Tribunal') affirming a decision of a delegate of the first respondent ('the Minister') refusing an application for protection visas.

HEARING OF THE APPEAL 2 The appeal was listed for hearing at 2.15 p.m. on Wednesday, 1 August 2007. At that time there was no appearance by either of the appellants or by a representative on their behalf. I refrained from going on the bench until just after 2.30 p.m. because I was aware the appellants might be travelling to Sydney from Griffith where I understood they resided. The matter was called on two separate occasions by the Court officer outside the Court but there was no response. I checked the Court file to satisfy myself that the appellants had been informed in writing of the time, date and location of the hearing of the appeal and that the written communication was correctly addressed to the appellants at the address on the Court file. On the Court file I identified a written communication dated 13 June 2007 which satisfied me in respect of all these matters. There was no indication that the communication had been returned 'not received'. 3 I indicated to counsel for the Minister that I proposed to consider and decide the appeal on the papers – the appeal book containing, inter alia, the reasons for judgment of his Honour below and the notice of appeal, as well as the written submissions filed on behalf of the Minister, a copy of which had been mailed to the appellants at the address recorded by the Court. No submissions had been filed on behalf of the appellants and counsel for the Minister indicated she did not wish to make any further oral submissions. 4 I also indicated to counsel for the Minister that if prior to delivering judgment it came to the knowledge of the Court that the circumstances leading to the non-appearance of the appellants were such that it was reasonable to conclude that their non-appearance was due to circumstances beyond their control, I would give the appellants the opportunity of making submissions, either orally or in writing. 5 After adjourning the Court, I contacted the Court Registry and had a member of the Registry staff telephone a mobile telephone number recorded in the Court file as a number on which the appellants could be contacted. I understand the Registry staff member spoke to a person who identified himself as one of the appellants and who explained that his non-appearance at the appeal hearing was due to the fact that he had missed the bus. He was invited to write to the Court and explain those circumstances, however, I have neither heard nor received anything further. I therefore proposes to deal with the matter on the papers.