SZVHV v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 511

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZVHV v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 511 Appeal from: Application for extension of time and leave to appeal: SZVHV v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2016] FCCA 242

File number: NSD 245 of 2016

Judge: DAVIES J

Date of judgment: 9 May 2016

Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 35.32

Date of hearing: 9 May 2016

Registry: Victoria

Division: General Division

National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Category: No Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 5

Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant did not appear

Solicitor for the First Respondent: A Keevers of Sparke Helmore

Counsel for the Second Respondent: The Second Respondent filed a submitting notice, save as to costs

ORDERS NSD 245 of 2016

BETWEEN: SZVHV Applicant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL Second Respondent

JUDGE: DAVIES J DATE OF ORDER: 9 may 2016

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application be dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to r 35.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). 2. The Applicant pay the First Respondent's costs of the application. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(REVISED FROM TRANSCRIPT)

DAVIES J: 1 The applicant has not appeared today nor filed submissions in support of his application for leave to appeal as directed by Court order. The first respondent seeks an order that the application be dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to r 35.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) which provides as follows: 35.32 Dismissing application for want of prosecution A respondent to an application under rule 35.12 or 34.14 may apply to the Court for an order that the application be dismissed: (a) for an applicant's failure to comply with a direction of the Court; or (b) for an applicant's failure to comply with these Rules; or (c) for an applicant's failure to attend a hearing relating to the application; or (d) for want of prosecution. There is no explanation for the failure of the applicant to appear or file submissions and I am accordingly prepared to dismiss the application. 2 I also add that having read the decision of the Tribunal, the decision of the Federal Circuit Court and the submissions on behalf of the first respondent, it appears to me that the proposed appeal would have no merit. 3 The proposed grounds of appeal were said to be: 1. [The Refugee Review Tribunal] breached procedural fairness. 2. [The Refugee Review Tribunal] has bias against me. 3. [The Refugee Review Tribunal] didn't treat me with fairness and justice. 4 They are the same three grounds that the applicant raised in his application for review to the Federal Circuit Court which the Federal Circuit Court dismissed, holding that the grounds did not disclose an arguable case of jurisdictional error. There is no discernible error in the reasons given by the Federal Circuit Court. 5 I will order the applicant to pay the first 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 Davies.