MZWDB v Minister for Immigration
[2004] FMCA 876
•27 October 2004
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| MZWDB v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION | [2004] FMCA 876 |
| MIGRATION – Unrepresented applicant – re-agitation of facts. |
Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wang Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259
Kopalapillai v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (1998) 86 FCR 547
| Applicant: | MZWDB |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
| File No: | MLG 159 of 2004 |
| Delivered on: | 27 October 2004 |
| Delivered at: | Melbourne |
| Hearing date: | 27 October 2004 |
| Judgment of: | O’Dwyer FM |
REPRESENTATION
| Applicant: | In person |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr S. Hay |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Clayton Utz |
ORDERS
The Application filed 16 February 2004 is dismissed.
The Applicant pay the Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $7,000.00 pursuant to Rule 21.02(2)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE |
MLG 159 of 2004
| MZWDB |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICUTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from transcript)
By an application filed on 16 February 2004 the Applicant sought a review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) made on 9 January 2004 which upheld a determination of the Respondent’s delegate made on 31 October 2002 to refuse to grant a protection visa (class XA).
The Applicant in these proceedings has in his application for review, and in a further broader statement filed with the court at the direction of a Registrar, re-agitated the facts of his case that were presented to the Tribunal. In re-agitating the facts and circumstances that brought the Applicant to Australia, the Applicant has effectively asked of this court to conduct an impermissible merits review of the Tribunal’s decision. It is trite to say that this court does not have the jurisdiction to conduct a merits review (see Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wang Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259). The role of this Court in these proceedings is to carefully examine the decision of the Tribunal to determine whether or not there has been a jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal in this case made findings of fact which included, in part, a finding that the Applicant was not a credible witness. This was very determinate of the Applicant's case for a protection visa. The Tribunal went on to make specific findings that some of the statements made by the applicant were, indeed, not accepted by the Tribunal. Based on those findings, the Tribunal upheld the delegate’s determination to refuse to grant a protection visa.
Notwithstanding the fact that the Applicant, who was unrepresented, was unable to present the necessary legal arguments to support a finding by this Court that the Tribunal had erred, I have carefully examined the decision of the Tribunal with a view to ascertaining whether, on the face of it, a jurisdictional error by the Tribunal is apparent. I could not fine one.
The finding on credibility was open to the Tribunal on the evidence before it (see Kopalapillai v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (1998) 86 FCR 547).
As this court does not conduct merit reviews and as that was what the Applicant wanted and effectively attempted, I am left with no alternative but to dismiss the application for review that was filed on 16 February 2004.
I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of O’Dwyer FM
Associate:
Date: 27 October 2004
0
2
0