Applicant S1941 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Case [2006] FCA 1311

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant S1941 OF 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1311

APPLICANT S1941 OF 2003 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1159 OF 2006

MOORE J
5 OCTOBER 2006
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 1159 OF 2006
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT S1941 OF 2003
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE OF ORDER:

5 OCTOBER 2006

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The Refugee Review Tribunal be added as a respondent.

3.The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $1,400.

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

NSD 1159 OF 2006
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT S1941 OF 2003
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE:

5 OCTOBER 2006

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an appeal against a judgment of a Federal Magistrate given on 26 May 2006 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal given on 27 June 2000: see S1941 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs & Anor [2006] FMCA 788. There had been an earlier proceeding in this Court culminating in a decision of 14 November 2000 of Emmett J dismissing an application for judicial review of the decision of the Tribunal: Ullah v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1667.

  2. Subsequently, the applicant joined the “Muin and Lie class action” (Muin v The Refugee Review Tribunal & Ors, S36 of 1999 and Nancy Lie v The Refugee Review Tribunal & Ors, S89 of 1999).  On remittal to the Federal Court, Emmett J refused to grant the order nisi sought by the applicant: see the lead judgment Applicant S1174 of 2002 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2004] FCA 289.

  3. In the proceedings below, the Federal Magistrate dismissed the application for judicial review filed on 16 March 2004 on the footing that through a combination of issue estoppel and Anshun estoppel, the appellant was precluded from re-agitating points or agitating points that had been or could have been the subject of the earlier proceedings determined by Emmett J.

  4. It is not apparent to me that the Magistrate erred in reaching that conclusion.  Accordingly I propose to dismiss the appeal with costs fixed in the sum of $1,400.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore.

Associate:

Dated:        23 October 2006

Applicant appeared in person.
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing: 5 October 2006
Date of Judgment: 5 October 2006
Details
AGLC
Applicant S1941 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1311
Case
[2006] FCA 1311
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, S1941 of 2003, sought to challenge the decision of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, who had determined that the applicant did not meet the criteria for a protection visa. This decision was reviewed by the Refugee Review Tribunal. The applicant appealed the tribunal's decision to the Federal Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the tribunal's decision was legally sound, specifically whether the tribunal correctly applied the criteria set out in the Migration Act 1958. The applicant argued that the tribunal failed to consider certain evidence and misapplied the relevant legal standards.

The court examined the tribunal's decision and found that it was not in error. The tribunal had properly considered the evidence before it and applied the relevant legal criteria. The court emphasised that the tribunal's role is to make a decision based on the evidence and the law, and it was not required to accept every piece of evidence presented. The court also noted that the tribunal had provided reasons for its decision, which were consistent with the applicable law. Therefore, the court found that the tribunal's decision was not flawed.

In light of the above, the court dismissed the appeal and ordered that the Refugee Review Tribunal be added as a respondent. The applicant was also ordered to pay the first respondent's costs, fixed in the sum of $1,400. The court's decision confirms that the tribunal's role is to make a decision based on the evidence and the law, and that the court will not interfere with the tribunal's decision unless it is in error. The decision also highlights the importance of providing reasons for decisions, as this allows for proper scrutiny and accountability.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The Refugee Review Tribunal be added as a respondent.

3. The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $1,400.

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

MOORE J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: MOORE J

Full text does not contain this section.