CZAA v Minister for Immigration
[2004] FMCA 883
•19 October 2004
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| CZAA v MINISTER for IMMIGRATION | [2004] FMCA 883 |
| MIGRATION – Refugee Review Tribunal – protection visa – application dismissed. |
| Applicant: | CZAA |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
| File No: | CAG 2 of 2004 |
| Delivered on: | 19 October 2004 |
| Delivered at: | Canberra |
| Hearing date: | 19 October 2004 |
| Judgment of: | Brewster FM |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Self Represented |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr Bromwich |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Clayton Utz |
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT CANBERRA |
CAG2 of 2004
| CZAA |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
This is an appeal against a decision made by the Refugee Review Tribunal on 23 December 2003. The Tribunal in its decision affirmed a decision of the delegate of the respondent to refuse the applicant a protection visa. For the purposes of this case I do not need to set out the background facts. They are set out in the decision of the Tribunal and summarised in the respondent's outline and submissions filed in this Court which I adopt for the purpose of this judgment.
In essence the complaint of the applicant is that the Tribunal misapprehended the facts. I do not need to go into the details of the applicant’s submissions to this effect. Had the Parliament provided that an appeal from the Tribunal to this Court was to be a rehearing
de novo, that is a complete rehearing of the case unfettered by the findings of the Tribunal, then perhaps the result of this appeal would have been different. I say "perhaps" because on its face the analysis of the case by the Tribunal and its findings of fact are, to my mind at any rate, very cogent. However this is not an appeal de novo or anything like it. The Parliament has severely circumscribed the powers of this Court to review decisions of the Tribunal. In particular, in so far as this case is concerned, I am not able to review the facts as found by the Tribunal. Given the way the case has been conducted I do not consider it necessary to embark on a detailed discussion of the law relating to the nature of appeals from the Tribunal. It is sufficient that I summarise it by stating that my task essentially is to determine if the Tribunal approached its task in an appropriate manner and gave the applicant a proper hearing according to law.
In my opinion the Tribunal did approach its task in an appropriate manner and did give the applicant a proper hearing according to law. There was nothing put by the applicant to me that would indicate otherwise. I can find no fault in the way the Tribunal approached its task. I propose to dismiss the appeal.
I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Brewster FM
Associate:
Date:
0
0
0