Corpuz, Reynaldo v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[1997] FCA 1203

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 479 of 1997

BETWEEN:	REYNALDO CORPUZ APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE(S):	HILL J
DATE:	7 NOVEMBER 1997
PLACE:	SYDNEY

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The applicant in these proceedings, Mr Reynaldo Corpuz, is a national of the Philippines.  He entered Australia on 25 August 1996 and applied for a protection visa which was refused.  He then appealed to the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) which formed a view that it was not satisfied that he was a person to whom Australia had protection obligations under the Refugees Convention, being the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol.

The Tribunal published its reasons on 23 May 1997.  In summary it said that, although it had no reason to doubt that Mr Corpuz had experienced harassment in the Philippines in the past and might well do so in the future, the harassment which he had experienced did not arise from a Convention reason, that is to say, it was not a form of persecution by reason of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.  The Tribunal accordingly dismissed the application for review, affirming the decision to refuse to grant him a protective visa.

Mr Corpuz then applied to this Court for an order to review the decision of the Tribunal.  The application was, it seems, prepared by a solicitor, although it was lodged personally by Mr Corpuz.  The grounds of application were that the decision of the Tribunal involved an error of law, being an error involving incorrect application of the law to the facts as found by the Tribunal, namely, that:

1. In not dealing that the threats to the applicant was due to his political opinion.

2. In not dealing that the threats was due to his membership of a particular social group.

The application says that the Tribunal should have concluded on the facts found that Mr Corpuz was a person who had a well founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason.

When the matter came on this morning for hearing Mr Corpuz represented himself.  He said that his solicitor had ceased to act for him.  I asked Mr Corpuz to tell me how and why it was that he said that the Tribunal had made a mistake, being a mistake of law rather than a mistake of fact.  Mr Corpuz frankly admitted that the Tribunal's reasons were correct and that it was for this reason that he had difficulty in telling me in what respect the Tribunal had made mistakes.  It follows that I must dismiss the application.

As I explained to Mr Corpuz, the Court has no general power to review decisions of the Tribunal nor has it the power to permit him to stay.  I gave Mr Corpuz the opportunity to put to me anything he wished to say on the question of costs.  He indicated to me that having regard to the history of the time he has spent in Australia he would have difficulty in paying costs.  That of course is not a reason, unfortunately, for my not making an order in the usual way for costs.

Accordingly, I would dismiss the application and order the applicant to pay the Minister's costs of it.

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

Associate:

Dated:            10 November 1997

Mr Corpuz appeared for himself
Counsel for the Respondent:	V Hartstein
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	7 November 1997
Date of Judgment:	7 November 1997