Case: Nguyen v Minister for Immigration &amp; Citizenship [2007] FCAFC 38
Outcome: considered
The decision of the Federal Magistrates Court dismissing the application is, it is considered, an interlocutory decision for the purposes of appeal rights: SZDGN v Minister for Immigration &amp; Multicultural &amp; Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1543 at [6] per Lindgren J; Md Abdullah Al Mamun v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 541. Accordingly, leave to appeal is required. The Applicant by the form of his Application acknowledges as much. He also acknowledges that an extension of time is also required: cf Nguyen v Minister for Immigration &amp; Citizenship [2007] FCAFC 38 at [18] . 11 No prejudice is now relied upon by the Respondent Minister by reason of the failure to commence proceedings within 21 days. The Respondent Minister, however, is critical of the Affidavit as filed. That criticism is soundly based. The fact that an applicant for leave to appeal may be unrepresented is not in itself a licence to disregard those Rules of Court with which all other litigants must comply. The importance of the decision under review -- especially when protection visas are sought -- cannot be ignored. Difficulties confronting unrepresented litigants, especially in migration appeals, are very real. But applicants do not advance such prospects of success as they may have by failing, as in the present case, to set forth any explanation at all as to why it is contended that the decision of the Federal Magistrate may be erroneous and why they have not commenced proceedings within time. As has been recognised, " casual disregard of the requirements of the Rules is inappropriate ": Nguyen v Minister for Immigration &amp; Citizenship [2007] FCAFC 38 at [23] . 12 The failure of the present Applicant to comply with the time limit imposed by s 477 of the Migration Act when commencing proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court, and his failure to comply with the time limits imposed by this Court's Rules for the commencement of appeals, only supports an inference that no real attention has been given at any point to time limits which are imposed. 13 Subsequent to the filing of the Application for Leave to Appeal on 3 December 2007 a letter dated 22 February 2008 was received by the Registry of this Court enclosing ( inter alia ): &#8226; a statement from the Pakistan Peoples Party; &#8226; two Affidavits dated 16 January 2008 deposing to an attempt to kill the Applicant; &#8226; a copy of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal signed on 29 December 2005; and &#8226; correspondence forwarded to the Minister. Objection was taken by the Respondent Minister to this further material being considered, even for the purposes of either an application for leave or for the purposes of an application for an extension of time. No objection, however, was taken to the further material being considered and a ruling on its admissibility being deferred. That was the course pursued. The further material has, accordingly, been considered. That material does not satisfy the requirements of O 52 r 4(2) or r 15(3)(c); nor does it provide any information of relevance to the present Application . The objection to this further material, it is considered, should be upheld and its tender rejected.