AZB15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1347 | Case summary

Federal Court of Australia|2018-08-31|Before: Perry J

The application is dismissed under subs 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).
The applicant is to pay the first respondent's cost as agreed or assessed. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

INTRODUCTION 1 The applicant is a citizen of India. He sought an extension of time under subs 477(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) within which to seek judicial review in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (FCC) of a decision made by the then Refugee Review Tribunal, the predecessor of the second respondent (the Tribunal). By its decision, the Tribunal had affirmed a decision by a delegate of the first respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (the Minister) not to grant him a Protection (Class XA) visa (protection visa). 2 The application for an extension of time was dismissed by the FCC pursuant to rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) (the FCC Rules) by reason of the failure by the applicant to appear at the first court date on 11 December 2017. The applicant applied under rule 16.05 of the FCC Rules for reinstatement of his proceeding. That application was refused by the primary judge on 9 March 2018. 3 By an application dated 6 April 2018 filed in this Court, the applicant seeks an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal from the FCC orders dismissing his reinstatement application. The draft notice of appeal identifies the following grounds:

THE APPLICATION TO DISMISS THE APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO SEEK LEAVE TO APPEAL FOR NON-ATTENDANCE AT THE HEARING 5 The application for an extension of time and leave to appeal was called on for hearing on 28 August 2018 at approximately 2:20 pm. The applicant did not appear. The matter was called outside the courtroom three times and there was still no appearance for the applicant. In the circumstances, I adjourned the Court briefly in order to allow the Minister's representative to endeavour to contact the applicant on the mobile phone number which the applicant had provided in his affidavit in support of the present applications for an extension of time and leave to appeal. The Minister's representative endeavoured to contact the applicant without success, with the two calls made going to voicemail. The Minister's representative also left a message on the voicemail message bank requesting the applicant to telephone him immediately upon receiving the voicemail. 6 In the circumstances, when the hearing resumed at approximately 2:43 pm the Minister applied for the application to be dismissed under subs 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (the FCA) for non-appearance and made brief oral submissions in support of that application. The Minister also tendered correspondence in support of that application to which I refer later in my reasons. 7 Section 25 of the FCA provides that: (2B) A single Judge (sitting in Chambers or in open court) or a Full Court may: … (bb) make an order that an appeal to the Court be dismissed for: …. (ii) failure of the appellant to attend a hearing relating to the appeal; or … 8 It is clear that while subs 25(2B)(bb) refers in its terms only to the dismissal of an appeal, that section also applies to an application for an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal by virtue of subs 25(2) and 25(2A) of the FCA.

REASONS FOR DISMISSING THE APPLICATION BY REASON OF THE APPLICANT'S FAILURE TO ATTEND THE HEARING 9 I agree that the application should be dismissed for non-attendance pursuant to these provisions by reason of the applicant's failure to attend when the applications for an extension of time and leave to appeal were called on today. In reaching this view, I have had regard to a number of factors in addition to the applicant's failure to attend. (1) The appellant did not file any written submissions in support of his applications despite orders made by the Registrar on 3 May 2018 providing that the applicant was to file and serve a written outline of submissions in support of the applications no later than ten business days before the hearing date. (2) The application book was served by the Minister upon the applicant by post under cover of a letter dated 9 May 2018 sent to the address identified in the applicant's application for an extension of time and leave to appeal. (3) On 10 July 2018 the Registry sent an email to the email address provided by the applicant on his application and to the Minister's representatives advising that the matter was listed before me at the Law Courts Building, Queens Square, 184 Phillip Street, Sydney on Tuesday, 28 August 2018 at 2:15pm. The email further advised that: The courtroom allocated to this matter will be displayed on the notice board at the Federal Court on the day of the hearing or is available on the Daily Court Lists from late in the afternoon the day before the hearing. Please note that orders determining the matter (including an order as to costs) may be made in your absence if you or your lawyer do not attend Court at the specified time. The email also asked the applicant to refer to the file number at the top of the letter if he needed to contact the Court about the matter and provided contact details, including a telephone number for the National Operations Team of the Federal Court, at the base of the letter. (4) On 27 July 2018, the Registry wrote again to the applicant using the email provided by him on his application, copied to the Minister's legal representatives. In that email, Registry advised that the matter was listed for hearing on 28 August 2018 at 2:15 pm and attached orders providing for the applicant to file further evidence in support of his application for the extension of time, as well as explaining the reasons why that order was made. (5) On 13 July 2018, the Minister's representatives wrote by email to the applicant attaching a letter bearing the same date and a sealed copy of the orders made by the Registrar on 3 May 2018. A copy of the letter was also apparently sent by post to the address provided by the applicant on his application for an extension of time and leave to appeal. The letter also advised as to the listing arrangements in accordance with those earlier communicated by the Registry and stated that: If you do not appear on that occasion, the Minister may apply to have the matter dismissed for non-appearance under the relevant provisions of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). I note that the letter also set out contact details for a person at Minter Ellison, the solicitors for the Minister, who the applicant could presumably contact in relation to the matter. (6) On 21 August 2018, the Minister's representatives wrote again by email to the applicant to the email address he provided attaching a letter which enclosed by way of service the Minister's outline of submissions and list of authorities. The letter noted again the listing details for today and repeated that if the applicant did not appear on that occasion, the Minister may apply to have the matter dismissed for non-appearance under the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (the FCA Rules). A copy of that letter was also apparently sent by post to the address provided by the applicant on his application for an extension of time and leave to appeal. (7) As I have earlier noted, the Court Officer called the matter outside the courtroom three times this afternoon with no appearance by the applicant and attempts to contact him by telephone when the matter was stood down briefly have been unsuccessful. Nor has there been any response to the voicemail left by the Minister's legal representative. (8) I further note that the proposed grounds of appeal do not indicate that any appeal would enjoy any reasonable prospects of success, even if the applicant were able to overcome the obstacles of requiring an extension of time and leave to appeal. The proposed Grounds 1, 2, 3 and 4 are unintelligible, unparticularised, and fail to specify the nature of the errors allegedly committed by the primary judge. Nor were those grounds elaborated upon in written submissions. With respect to proposed Ground 5, it is apparent that, by reason of his failure to attend the interview before the Tribunal, it was entitled under s 426A of the Act to dismiss his application without taking any further action to enable the applicant to appear before it. The Tribunal in fact followed that course and, based upon its assessment of the evidence, found that it was not satisfied that the applicant met the criteria for the grant of a protection visa. The sixth proposed ground effectively asked this Court to consider whether the applicant satisfies the criteria for a protection visa. However, as the primary judge held in his reasons at [9] and [29], it is not open to the Federal Circuit Court, or this Court, to consider the merits of his visa application. 10 Finally, I note that in acceding to the Minister's application, I have had regard to the entitlement of the appellant to apply under rule 36.75(2) of the FCA Rules to set aside the orders made today. Whether or not any such application succeeded would depend upon an exercise of discretion. I note that relevant considerations to the exercise of that discretion include whether there is an acceptable explanation for the applicant's failure to attend the hearing today and the strength of his case on the application if the order dismissing his application for an extension of time and leave to appeal were to be set aside. 11 For these reasons, the application should be dismissed under subs 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the FCA with costs as agreed or assessed. I certify that the preceding eleven (11) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Perry.

AZB15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (4 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (4)

Cited By (1)