FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Zhao An Guan v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 42
MIGRATION – no error of law – application dismissed
ZHAO AN GUAN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
V 1514 OF 2004
MARSHALL J
2 FEBRUARY 2005
MELBOURNE
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY |
V 1514 OF 2004 |
|
BETWEEN: |
ZHAO AN GUAN APPLICANT
|
|
AND: |
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
|
|
MARSHALL J |
|
|
DATE OF ORDER: |
2 FEBRUARY 2005 |
|
WHERE MADE: |
MELBOURNE |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application for an extension of time to appeal be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application for an extension of time within which to appeal.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY |
V 1514 OF 2004 |
|
BETWEEN: |
ZHAO AN GUAN APPLICANT
|
|
AND: |
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
|
|
JUDGE: |
MARSHALL J |
|
DATE: |
2 FEBRUARY 2005 |
|
PLACE: |
MELBOURNE |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 The applicant, Mr Zhao An Guan, has applied to the Court seeking an extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court.
2 On 18 November 2004, Bennett F M dismissed the applicant’s application for judicial review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal (“the MRT”).
3 The applicant filed his application for an extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal, together with his draft notice of appeal, on 14 December 2004, some 5 days after the due date.
4 The draft notice of appeal does not contain any grounds of appeal. No affidavit has been filed in which the applicant seeks to explain why he did not file and serve a notice of appeal within 21 days of the date of the judgment of Bennett F M.
5 No point would be served by the granting of an extension of time if the appeal was bound to fail. I have carefully considered the reasons for judgment of Bennett F M. In my view her Honour correctly determined that the MRT did not make a reviewable error in refusing the applicant an Other Family (Residence) visa. The matters relied upon by the solicitor for the applicant before her Honour concerned the merits of the MRT’s decision rather than any question of jurisdictional error. The applicant before me this morning has advanced nothing to the contrary, other than a further complaint about the merits of the decision.
6 Accordingly the Court will order that the application for an extension of time within which to appeal be dismissed, with costs.
|
I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Marshall. |
Associate:
Dated: 2 February 2005
|
The Applicant represented himself. |
|
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent: |
Ms S. Weavers |
|
|
|
|
Solicitor for the Respondent: |
Clayton Utz |
|
|
|
|
Date of Hearing: |
2 February 2005 |
|
|
|
|
Date of Judgment: |
2 February 2005 |
