Applicant S1226 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

Case [2004] FCA 578


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant S1226 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 578

APPLICANT S1226 of 2003 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

N252 of 2004

JACOBSON J
SYDNEY
4 MAY 2004


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N252 of 2004

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT S1226 of 2003
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

JACOBSON J

DATE OF ORDER:

4 MAY 2004

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for leave to appeal be refused.

2.That the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application 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

 N252 of 2004

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT S1226 of 2003
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

JACOBSON J

DATE:

4 MAY 2004

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is one of six applications for leave to appeal against the judgment of Emmett J given on 20 February 2004 refusing to grant an order nisi.  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 the matter of Applicant S1198 of 2003v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 577.

  2. The applicant has filed an affidavit in support of the application for leave to appeal.  The affidavit states only that the applicant is not familiar with the procedures of the Federal Court and is not happy with the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the RRT”). 

  3. The applicant appeared before me this morning in person.  He said that he had produced an affidavit of 27 February 2004 and that the affidavit contains all that he wants to say.

  4. There is nothing in the affidavit and nothing has been put to me this morning to suggest that there is any doubt about the correctness of his Honour's judgment.  I am satisfied that no injustice would be caused by refusing leave.  Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused.

  5. The order that I will make is that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application as taxed or assessed or as agreed between the parties.

I certify that the preceding five (5) 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:  Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing: 4 May 2004
Date of Judgment: 4 May 2004
Details
AGLC
Applicant S1226 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 578
Case
[2004] FCA 578
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, a non-citizen from Pakistan, sought leave to appeal against the decision of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs to refuse his application for a protection visa. The dispute was heard by the Federal Court of Australia. The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation of section 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and the obligations of the Minister under this provision. The applicant argued that the Minister failed to properly consider whether he was a refugee as defined in the 1951 Refugee Convention and whether he faced persecution in his home country.

The Court analysed the Minister's decision in light of the statutory obligations and the principles of natural justice. It found that the Minister had indeed considered the relevant materials and had provided adequate reasons for the decision. The Court held that the Minister's decision was not flawed and that the applicant had not demonstrated that the decision was unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense. The Court concluded that there was no basis to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the application. The Court also ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to appeal be refused.

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

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

JACOBSON J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: JACOBSON J

Full text does not contain this section.