Bizuneh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2000] FCA 250

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Bizuneh v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs
[2000] FCA 250

TAFESE ESHETU BIZUNEH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N 1465 OF 1999

GYLES J
SYDNEY
7 FEBRUARY 2000

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 1465 OF 1999

BETWEEN:	TAFESE ESHETU BIZUNEH APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	GYLES J
DATE OF ORDER:	7 FEBRUARY 2000
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

2.The applicant to pay the cost to the respondent of today on a directions basis.

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 1465 OF 1999

BETWEEN:	TAFESE ESHETU BIZUNEH APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	GYLES J
DATE:	7 FEBRUARY 2000
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application in substance to release the applicant from detention or to transfer him to another custody where the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has no control.  The circumstances of that application are set out in a statement annexed to the application of some 13 paragraphs and two affidavits: one of 22 December 1999 and the other of 2 February 2000.

2. The solicitor for the respondent submits that there is no jurisdiction to make any of the orders sought and he has handed up an outline of written submissions to that effect.  Mr Asuzu for the applicant has been unable to refer me to any basis of jurisdiction which would entitle me to make these orders.  Mr Markus for the respondent points out that the application has been before the court on several occasions and that the court should now recognise the lack of jurisdiction and dismiss it before further costs are incurred.  That submission is soundly based in view of the very proper concession by Mr Asuzu on behalf of the applicant.

3. I therefore propose to dismiss the application.  The respondent seeks costs.  I do not think  there is anything which can be said as against that as a matter of principle and whether or not it is enforced is a matter of course for the respondent.

4. The order which I make is:

   (1)that the application is dismissed;

   (2)that the applicant is to pay the cost to the respondent of today on a directions basis.

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

Associate:

Dated:             7 February 2000

Solicitor for the Applicant:	Mr Azuzu
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	7 February 2000
Date of Judgment:	7 February 2000