Applicant S506 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

Case [2004] FCA 450

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant S506 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 450

APPLICANT S506 OF 2003 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS & ORS

N 2532 OF 2003

EMMETT J

9 FEBRUARY 2004

SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 2532 OF 2003

ON REMITTAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT S506 OF 2003
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

PRINCIPAL MEMBER OF THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

ROSLYN SMIDT
MEMBER OF THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

9 FEBRUARY 2004

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application for an order nisi be refused.

2.        The applicant pay the Minister’s costs.

3.No further application by the applicant for review of the decision of the Tribunal of 14 January 2002 be accepted for filing in the Court, except by leave of the Court.

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

N 2532 OF 2003

ON REMITTAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT S506 OF 2003
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

PRINCIPAL MEMBER OF THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

ROSLYN SMIDT
MEMBER OF THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE:

9 FEBRUARY 2004

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. On 17 September 2003 the applicant filed a draft order nisi in the High Court of Australia supported by an affidavit sworn on 15 September 2003.  The applicant claimed constitutional writ relief relating to a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) made on 14 January 2002.  That decision has already been the subject of considerable litigation at the behest of the applicant.  On 19 August 2003, Driver FM gave the applicant leave to discontinue an application to the Federal Magistrates Court filed on 21 July 2003 and ordered that no further application be accepted for filing for review of the decision of the Tribunal. 

  2. The affidavit filed in support of the application for an order nisi in the High Court discloses no basis upon which any relief should be granted.  Accordingly I propose to refuse an order nisi.

  3. I also propose to order that no further application by the applicant be accepted for filing in the Court for review of the decision of the Tribunal of 14 January 2002, except by leave of the Court.

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:            20 September 2004

The applicant appeared in person
Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing: 9 February 2004
Date of Judgment: 9 February 2004
Details
AGLC
Applicant S506 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 450
Case
[2004] FCA 450
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Applicant S506 of 2003 sought review of a decision made by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, which rejected the applicant’s application for a protection visa. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicant, who was not named in the case, appealed against the Minister’s decision, claiming that the decision was flawed and that he should be granted a protection visa.

The legal issues before the court were whether the decision of the Minister was unlawful or irrational, and whether the applicant should be granted a protection visa. The court had to consider whether the Minister had properly exercised his discretion under the Migration Act 1958 and whether there were any errors in the decision-making process.

The court found that the decision of the Minister was lawful and rational, and that there were no errors in the decision-making process. The court noted that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to support his claim for a protection visa, and that the Minister had properly considered all relevant factors in making his decision. The court also found that the applicant had not demonstrated that he had a valid reason for not providing the necessary evidence. The court therefore refused the application for an order nisi, ordered the applicant to pay the Minister’s costs, and prohibited further applications for review of the decision by the Tribunal, except with leave of the Court.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for an order nisi be refused.

2. The applicant pay the Minister’s costs.

3. No further application by the applicant for review of the decision of the Tribunal of 14 January 2002 be accepted for filing in the Court, except by leave of the Court.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.