Masriadi v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2000] FCA 1424

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Masriadi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1424

MASRIADI v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N 260 OF 2000

TAMBERLIN J
SYDNEY
4 OCTOBER 2000

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 260 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	MASRIADI APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	TAMBERLIN J
DATE OF ORDER:	4 OCTOBER 2000
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application for review be dismissed with costs.

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 260 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	MASRIADI APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	TAMBERLIN J
DATE:	4 OCTOBER 2000
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In this matter I have heard the submissions of the applicant and they, in substance, amount to a repetition of assertions that he will be discriminated against on the ground of Chinese ethnicity if he is returned to Indonesia.  This Court is confined by the provisions of the Migration Act 1958 to review the decisions of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the RRT”) only on a limited number of grounds.  In the present case no errors of law have been demonstrated in the approach taken by the RRT.  This Court is not able to review questions of fact except in exceptional circumstances and no such circumstances have been shown in the present case.

2. For example, the applicant is concerned that the RRT erred in relation to the extent of the persecution in Indonesia and his concern was that the member of the RRT has underestimated this.  This is classically a question of fact and degree and this Court cannot review the decision of the member on that basis.  A number of other matters were raised but none of them, in my view, persuade me that there has been any reviewable error of law or fact in the decision of the RRT or in the approach which it has taken to consideration of the application.

3. I have had the benefit of considering the reasons for decision of the RRT and am unable to detect any error which would warrant judicial review in this matter and accordingly I propose to dismiss the application for review with costs.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Tamberlin.

Associate:

Dated:             10 October 2000

Counsel for the Applicant:	The applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	S Lloyd
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	4 October 2000
Date of Judgment:	4 October 2000