FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SZTGF v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 1359
Appeal from: | |
File number(s): | NSD 2230 of 2017 |
Judge(s): | ABRAHAM J |
Date of judgment: | |
Legislation: | |
Registry: | New South Wales |
Division: | General Division |
National Practice Area: | Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights |
Category: | No Catchwords |
Number of paragraphs: | |
Counsel for the First Respondent: | Mr G Johnson |
Solicitor for the First Respondent: | Sparke Helmore |
Counsel for the Second Respondent: | The Second Respondent filed a submitting notice, save as to costs |
ORDERS
Appellant | ||
AND: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION First Respondent ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL Second Respondent | |
DATE OF ORDER: | 13 aUGUST 2019 |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application be dismissed under r 36.75(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).
2. The appellant is to pay the first respondent’s costs as agreed or assessed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
ABRAHAM J:
1 In this matter, the appellant appeals from a decision of the Federal Circuit Court, delivered on 8 December 2017, which dismissed his application for judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal), the second respondent, made on 24 June 2016. The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the appellant Protection (Class XA) visa.
2 This appeal was listed for hearing on 13 August 2019 at 10.15 am. The appellant did not appear at the hearing.
3 The first respondent made an application for the proceedings to be dismissed pursuant to rule 36.75(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), which relevantly provides that if an appellant is absent when an appeal is called on for hearing the opposing party may apply to the Court for an order that the appeal be dismissed.
4 The first respondent read an affidavit for the purposes of the application which establishes that the appellant is no longer in Australia, having departed voluntarily on 10 December 2018. The appellant had held a Bridging visa, which ceased to exist on 2 March 2015. The Department records also establish that the appellant does not currently hold any visa which would permit him re-entry into Australia.
5 In all the circumstances, the appropriate course is to dismiss the appeal given the appellant’s absence, pursuant to rule 36.75(1)(a)(i). The first respondent also sought an order that the appellant pay the Minister’s costs. I make that order.
I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Abraham. |
Associate:
