Barman v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2000] FCA 1944

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Barman v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs
[2000] FCA 1944

ASHIM KUMAR BARMAN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N 1154 OF 2000

GYLES J
SYDNEY
12 DECEMBER 2000

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N1154 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	ASHIM KUMAR BARMAN APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	GYLES J
DATE OF ORDER:	12 DECEMBER 2000
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.   The application be dismissed

2.   The applicant pay the costs of the respondent

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	N1154 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	ASHIM KUMAR BARMAN APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	GYLES J
DATE:	12 DECEMBER 2000
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for an order of review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal made on 15 September 2000, and received by the applicant on 5 October 2000, in which the Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the respondent, the Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs, to refuse to grant a protection visa to the applicant.

2. The application states no ground of review within Part 8 of the Migration Act (Cth) 1958.  I note from the file that there was an order that any amendment be made by 27 November 2000, at which time the applicant was represented by counsel.

3. When the matter was called on today I drew the attention of the applicant to the deficiency in the application but he indicated that he had no application to make.  The deficiency had also been pointed out in the respondent's outline of submissions which I am informed the applicant received yesterday and he received a further copy this morning.  He confirms that he had the opportunity of reading those submissions before the hearing commenced.

4. In these circumstances counsel for the Minister submits that the matter should be dismissed.  He refers to Order 20 rule 2 and Order 54B rule 5.  Whilst they may have some application in the present circumstances the matter has been called on for final hearing today and it seems to me that the real situation is that the applicant is not able to present any case today because of the deficiency in his application and the matter is liable to be dismissed on that account without the necessity to resort to Order 20 rule 2 or Order 54B rule 5.  I am satisfied that there has been ample opportunity for the applicant to bring forward any ground of review which could be isolated from the Tribunal decision. 

5. I have read the Tribunal decision and although I have not read it with a view to finding error it did not appear to me to exhibit any obvious error, and indeed counsel for the respondent has provided me with written submissions which defend the decision.  I refer to those matters to indicate that in my view there is no purpose to be served by any further delay in this matter.  There is no obvious ground of appeal which the presently unrepresented applicant has missed, even if it were my task to find one, which I do not think it is.

6. Under all of the circumstances and bearing in mind the very limited role that a court has in a situation like this, I am bound to dismiss the proceedings and for that purpose I utilise all of the powers which I have.  Therefore the application is dismissed and I order that the applicant pay the costs of the respondent.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Gyles.

Associate:

Dated:             21 December 2000

Applicant in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	J Smith
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Blake Dawson Waldron
Date of Hearing:	12 December 2000
Date of Judgment:	12 December 2000