Ansit, Letecia v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[1998] FCA 1454

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG945 of 1998

BETWEEN:	LETECIA ANSIT Applicant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent

JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE:	11 NOVEMBER 1998
PLACE:	SYDNEY

EXTEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

WILCOX J:  An application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal was filed in this matter on 8 September last.  The application set out as its ground:  "The decision involved an error of law".  The error was not identified in the application.  I read the reasons of the Tribunal before coming into Court and noted the Tribunal hearing took place in the absence of the applicant for the protection visa, the applicant before me, Letecia Ansit.  This occurred because Ms Ansit elected not to attend the hearing and requested the Tribunal to determine the matter on the papers.  This appears from a letter from her solicitor faxed to the Tribunal on the day of hearing, 10 August 1998.

In the situation confronting him the Tribunal member had a difficult task.  He reviewed the papers and reached a conclusion he was not satisfied, on the basis of the material before him, that the applicant was a person to whom Australia had protection obligations under the Refugees’ Convention.  He gave reasons which included pointing out the very considerable deficiencies in the material put before him.

I have read the Tribunal member's reasons carefully.  I see no error of law in his approach.  Ms Ansit appeared in person today.  I asked her to indicate the error of law on which she relied but she was unable to do so.  Finally, she said she would like to have an adjournment so that she could get legal advice.  I refused this application.

I comment the application seems misconceived.  It was filed by the applicant, acting on her own behalf, although apparently with assistance from some other person, probably not a lawyer.  The applicant has no idea why she came to the Court.  Scrutiny of the file by me does not provide any basis for thinking there is any ground of review.  In my opinion, the appropriate course is for me to dismiss the application.

[There was discussion about costs.]

I order that the application be dismissed with costs.

I certify that this and the preceding one (1) page is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Wilcox

Associate:

Dated:            11 NOVEMBER 1998

Applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	A Pearson
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	11 November 1998