And Indigenous Affairs

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant A376/2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural

And Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 1498

MIGRATION – applicants’ review application to Tribunal dismissed on grounds of inconsistency with country information and in any event absence of credibility or corroboration – earlier application for enlargement of time for review of Tribunal decision by Federal Court not pursued – prerogative relief sought thereafter belatedly from High Court – application remitted to Federal Court – no satisfactory explanation for delayed applications – no error in any event in original Tribunal decision – proceedings dismissed.

High Court Rules Order 55 Rule 30

Re Commonwealth of Australia (Department of Defence); Ex parte Marks (2000) 177 ALR 491
Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs & Ors; Ex parte Cassim (2000) 175 ALR 209
Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte ‘A’ 185 ALR 489
Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Applicant S154/2002 HCA 60
Abebe v Commonwealth (1999) 197 CLR 510

APPLICANT A376/2002 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

S 329 OF 2003

CONTI J
16 DECEMBER 2003
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	S 329 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT A 376/2002
APPLICANTS

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

FEDOR MEDIANSKY, MEMBER, REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

PRINCIPAL MEMBER OF THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

CONTI J

DATE OF ORDER:

16 DECEMBER 2003

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application be dismissed.

2.        The applicants pay the respondents’ costs of the application.

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	S 329 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT A 376/2002
APPLICANTS

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

FEDOR MEDIANSKY, MEMBER, REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

PRINCIPAL MEMBER OF THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	CONTI J
DATE:	16 DECEMBER 2003
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicants comprise a family of husband, wife and child, who arrived in Australia on 28 October 2000, and on 12 December 2000, lodged an application for a protection (class XA) visa. On 9 February 2001, a delegate of the Minister (‘the respondent’) refused the application, and the applicants’ application for review of that decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal  (‘the RRT’) was refused on 30 May 2002.

2. On 13 December 2002, that is, more than six months after the adverse decision of the RRT, the applicants filed an application in the High Court of Australia for the constitutional writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, pursuant to s 75(v) of the Constitution in respect of the RRT’s decision dismissing the applicants’ respective claims for protection visas. The following grounds were relied upon:

   (i)breach of the rules of natural justice occurring in connection with the making of the RRT decision;

   (ii)the making of an error of law, whether…