Applicant S1914 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 589 (4 May 2004)

Last Updated: 11 May 2004

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant S1914 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 589

APPLICANT S1914 of 2003 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
N348 of 2004

JACOBSON J
4 MAY 2004
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N348 of 2004

BETWEEN:	APPLICANT S1914 of 2003 APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	JACOBSON J
DATE OF ORDER:	4 MAY 2004
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.	The motion be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the motion as taxed or assessed or as agreed between the parties.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N348 of 2004

BETWEEN:	APPLICANT S1914 of 2003 APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	JACOBSON J
DATE:	4 MAY 2004
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1 This is one of eight motions under O 52 r 10(2)(b) for an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal against the judgment of Emmett J given on 20 February 2004 refusing to grant an order nisi. The motion was filed on 15 March 2004. An explanation for the delay has been given which appears to me to be a sufficient explanation. The relevant background to the proceedings and the reasons why his Honour refused to make an order nisi are referred to in my judgment in Applicant S1198 of 2003 [2004] FCA 577.

2 The applicant has filed an affidavit in support of the application for an extension of time. He says in the affidavit that the decision of Emmett J is not correct because it has not given the applicant any opportunity to put legal arguments before the court and did not consider all the legal factors relevant to the application. The affidavit also says that further information will be submitted in the future.

3 The applicant appeared before me in person this morning. He was assisted by an interpreter. He submitted that he is a Hindu from Bangladesh and is a member of a minority religion in that country. He told me that he had married a Muslim woman and that if he wishes to live in Bangladesh he will have to change his religion which he does not want to do.

4 He says that he should have the right to lead his life without changing his religion. He also says that he has not been able to see his family for many years. The applicant also told me that he does not understand why his application was rejected and that he is not literate in the law and that he would like more time to obtain legal assistance.

5 This case was one in which, initially, the applicant was named as a represented party in the proceedings that were brought in the High Court and the applicant had a solicitor who was at one stage representing him in the proceedings. The applicant told me this afternoon that he left Bangladesh in a hurry and that he needs more time to provide documents and he repeated his request for more time to go to a solicitor.

6 However, Emmett J in his judgment referred to the fact that the solicitors, who were then appearing, had not filed affidavit evidence which made good the claim that the proceedings were covered by the principles stated in Muin v The Refugee Review Tribunal [2002] HCA 30; (2002) 76 ALJR 966. Accordingly, it does not seem to be appropriate to grant any further time to the applicant before deciding the motion for an extension of time.

7 I appreciate the considerable burden which the applicant will suffer as he has mentioned this afternoon, however, nothing has been put to me either in the affidavit or orally to suggest that there is any doubt about the correctness of his Honour's judgment. I am satisfied that an extension of time would be futile because there are no prospects of success on an application for leave to appeal.

8 Accordingly, the orders which I will make are that the motion be dismissed and the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the motion as taxed or assessed or as agreed between the parties.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Jacobson.

Associate:

Date: 4 May 2004

Applicant self represented
Counsel for the Respondent:	J D Harris SC
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Blake Dawson Waldron
Date of Hearing:	4 May 2004
Date of Judgment:	4 May 2004