Applicant S1193/2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal

Case [2003] FCA 1606

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant S1193/2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2003] FCA 1606

APPLICANT S1193/2003 v REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ANOR

N1011 OF 2003

EMMETT J
27 OCTOBER 2003
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N1011 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT S1193/2003
APPLICANT

AND:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

27 OCTOBER 2003

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        the application be dismissed;

2.        the applicant pay the second respondent’s costs.

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

N1011 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT S1193/2003
APPLICANT

AND:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE:

27 OCTOBER 2003

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. On 29 May 2003, a draft order nisi and an affidavit in support were filed in the High Court of Australia on behalf of the applicant.  At that stage the applicant was represented by Adrian Joel & Co, solicitors.  The matter was then remitted to this Court.  On 17 October 2003, Adrian Joel & Co withdrew as solicitors for the applicant. 

  2. In the meantime, on 30 June 2003, the applicant requested the second respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (‘the Minister’), to assist him to depart Australia and, on 8 July 2003, the applicant was removed from Australia.  It is not surprising, therefore, that, when the matter was called today, there was no appearance for the applicant.  The Minister therefore asks that the proceeding be dismissed.  In the circumstances, it is appropriate to accede to that request.

  3. Accordingly, I propose to order that the application be dismissed and that the applicant to pay the Minister’s costs of the proceeding.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett.

Associate:

Dated:            22 January 2004

Counsel for the Applicant: No appearance
Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing: 27 October 2003
Date of Judgment: 27 October 2003
Details
AGLC
Applicant S1193/2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2003] FCA 1606
Case
[2003] FCA 1606
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Applicant S1193/2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal, the applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal. The tribunal had reviewed an application for a protection visa by the applicant, who was a citizen of an unnamed country, and found that the applicant did not qualify as a refugee under the applicable legislation. The applicant appealed this decision to the Federal Court of Australia, which subsequently referred the matter to the High Court.

The legal issues before the High Court centred on the interpretation of the definition of a refugee under the relevant legislation. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the applicant satisfied the criteria for being considered a refugee, which includes a fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. The applicant argued that the tribunal had erred in its interpretation of the relevant provisions and had failed to consider all of the evidence presented.

The court considered the arguments put forward by both parties and examined the evidence and the tribunal's decision. It held that the tribunal had correctly interpreted the legislation and had properly considered the evidence in reaching its decision. The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated a fear of persecution that met the definition of a refugee under the legislation. Accordingly, the court dismissed the application for judicial review and ordered that the applicant pay the costs of the second respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. the application be dismissed;

2. the applicant pay the second respondent’s costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

EMMETT J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: EMMETT J

Full text does not contain this section.