Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Alice Car and Truck Rentals Pty Ltd

[1997] FCA 920

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 108 of 1998

BETWEEN:	MOHAMMED HASSAN APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTIULTURAL AFAFIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	TAMBERLIN J
DATE:	29/07/98
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Ex-Tempore Judgment

This is an application for an order of review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal handed down by tribunal member, Kim Rosser, on 19 January 1998.  The conclusion reached by the Refugee Review Tribunal was that having regard to the evidence as a whole, the Tribunal member was not satisfied that Mr Hassan is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees as Amended by the 1967 Protocol.  Accordingly, the criteria set out in the Act for a protection visa have not been made out and the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant a protection visa. 

The grounds alleged in the application for an order of review, which was filed on 18 February 1998, are that the respondent Minister decided that the applicant was not a person to whom Australia had protection obligations under the Refugee Convention.  The dissatisfaction expressed is simply that the applicant was not satisfied with the decision because he believed that the primary case officer, as well as the Tribunal, failed properly to assess the merits of his situation in Bangladesh and that he was definitely facing life imprisonment on return.

He indicated that he would submit a statutory declaration and other relevant documents to establish his claim as soon as possible.  The Court has been furnished with a copy of the Statutory Declaration given by Mr Hassan, which is dated 24 April 1998.

I indicated at the outset of the proceeding that I wanted to hear from the applicant on what errors he contended had been made in relation to the decision of the Tribunal.  He indicated that he relied on the statutory declaration which had been formulated and presented to the Court.  Having considered the contents of that statutory declaration, it is apparent that the matters which are relied on there raise essentially questions of fact and merit. These are a matter for determination by the Tribunal.  No error of law or of procedure or other ground of review under the Migration Act1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) has been asserted nor established in the hearing before me. Accordingly, since my jurisdiction is restricted by the Act to limited grounds, I cannot see that any such ground has been made out. I have decided that this application for review must be dismissed. I order that costs should follow the event.

The orders of the Court are that the application for review should be dismissed with costs.

I certify that this and the preceding one (1) pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Tamberlin

Associate:

Dated:            29/07/98

Litigant in Person:	Mr Hassan
Interpreter:	Mr B Amin
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms R Henderson
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	29 July 1998
Date of Judgment:	29 July 1998