Applicant S277 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal

[2003] FCA 1610

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant S277 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2003] FCA 1610

APPLICANT S277 OF 2003 v REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ORS

N 995 OF 2003

EMMETT J
4 DECEMBER 2003
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N995 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT S277 OF 2003
APPLICANT

AND:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENT

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

4 DECEMBER 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	N995 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT S277 OF 2003
APPLICANT

AND:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENT

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	EMMETT J
DATE:	4 DECEMBER 2003
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant is a citizen of Fiji.  He arrived in Australia on 2 November 1997.  On 11 April 2000 he lodged an application for a protection (class XA) visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). On 20 April 2000, a delegate of the second respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (‘the Minister’), refused to grant a protection visa and, on 26 April 2000, the applicant applied for review of that decision. On 18 May 2000, the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) affirmed the decision not to grant a protection visa.

2. The applicant subsequently became a party to a proceeding in the High Court and, on 10 June 2003, the applicant filed a draft order nisi seeking prerogative writ relief in the High Court.  That matter was remitted to this Court.  On 27 October 2003, I directed the applicant to file and serve, no later than 24 November 2003, a statement of contentions of relevant facts and law and any affidavits upon which the applicant intends to rely at the hearing.  Nothing was filed pursuant to that direction. 

3. However, the applicant wrote two letters, on 14 November 2003 and 21 November 2003, to the Minister’s solicitor.  The letters attached newspaper cuttings and asked generally that his circumstances be taken into account in some reconsideration of his position.  None of the material purports to establish any ground upon which this Court would have power to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. 

4. I have read the Tribunal’s reasons for its decision.  The reasons record that the applicant came to Australia in November 1997 to testify as a character witness in a court case.  He had been due to depart Australia within a week but did not do so.  He was reported to the compliance authorities for his failure to depart but managed to avoid them by staying with friends and family in Sydney until being taken into detention at the Villawood Detention Centre.  It was only then that he applied for a protection visa. 

5. The applicant stated that he did not want to return to Fiji because he had no one on whom to depend since his mother had died and that the decline in the economy meant that there were fewer opportunities for work and less pay being offered.  He said that he would be seen as an outcast and face discrimination because he lacked parents. 

6. The Tribunal considered that the applicant’s evidence did not suggest that he had a fear of persecution for a Convention reason in Fiji.  The Tribunal accepted that the applicant did not wish to return to Fiji because the social benefits available in Australia are far superior.  The Tribunal accepted that, having failed his final school examinations, the applicant would have difficulty in choosing a job and he might have trouble finding a job in Fiji that would carry the salary and the white collar status that he desires.

7. The Tribunal clearly had sympathy for the position of the applicant but was unable to conclude that he had a fear of persecution in Fiji for any Convention reason.  There is nothing on the face of the reasons to indicate any error on the part of the Tribunal and the applicant has not demonstrated any basis upon which this Court would have any jurisdiction to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal.

8. Accordingly, I propose to accede to the Minister’s application for the proceeding to be dismissed pursuant to O 10 r 7(2) of the Federal Court Rules for failing to comply with my direction.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) 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:	The applicant appeared in person with the assistance of an interpreter
Solicitor for the Respondents:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	4 December 2003
Date of Judgment:	4 December 2003