FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Abeygunawardena v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
[2001] FCA 869
KUSHAN MAHESHI WEPATHERGE ABEYGUNAWARDENA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
V642 of 2000
WEINBERG J
5 JULY 2001
MELBOURNE
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
BETWEEN: |
KUSHAN MAHESHI WEPATHERGE ABEYGUNAWARDENA
APPLICANT
|
|
AND: |
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT |
|
DATE OF ORDER: |
|
|
WHERE MADE: |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the respondent’s notice of motion dated 28 June 2001 and of the application itself.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
BETWEEN: |
KUSHAN MAHESHI WEPATHERGE ABEYGUNAWARDENA
APPLICANT
|
|
AND: |
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT |
|
JUDGE: |
|
|
DATE: |
|
|
PLACE: |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 This is an application under Pt 8 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) for a review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the RRT”) affirming a decision of a delegate of the respondent to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa.
2 The application for a protection visa was made on 28 April 1997. That application was refused on 4 December 1997 and on 15 December 1997 the applicant sought review of that decision. On 19 July 2000 the RRT affirmed the decision.
3 The application for review to this Court was filed on 28 August 2000. By notice of motion filed on 28 June 2001 the respondent has moved the Court for orders that the application be struck out or dismissed and that the applicant pay the respondent’s cost of and incidental to this motion and of this proceeding.
4 The notice of motion is supported by evidence which establishes to my satisfaction that the applicant left Australia on 6 January 2001. He is no longer therefore eligible for a protection visa in accordance with the criteria laid down in the Refugees Convention. In these circumstances, it would be futile to hear the application. The only appropriate course is to grant the relief sought in the notice of motion.
5 It follows that the application for an order of review must be dismissed with costs.
|
I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Weinberg. |
Associate:
Dated: 5 July 2001
|
|
No appearance for the Applicant. |
|
|
|
|
|
Ms S.J. Sheppard, Solicitor, appeared for the Respondent |
|
|
|
|
Solicitor for the Respondent: |
Clayton Utz |
|
|
|
|
Date of Hearing: |
5 July 2001 |
|
|
|
|
Date of Judgment: |
5 July 2001 |
