MZWNZ v Minister for Immigration

[2005] FMCA 251

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MZWNZ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2005] FMCA 251

MIGRATION – Re–agitation of facts – impermissible review on merits sought.

Applicant: MZWNZ

Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File Number: MLG 852 of 2004

Judgment of: O’Dwyer FM

Hearing date: 20 January 2005

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 20 January 2005

REPRESENTATION

Applicant: No appearance

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Macdonnell

Solicitors for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

1. The application filed on 29 June 2004 and amended by an application filed on 3 December 2004 be dismissed.

2. The Applicant pay the costs of the Respondent fixed in the sum of $5,000.00 pursuant to Rule 21.02(2)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
MELBOURNE

MLG 852 of 2004

MZWNZ

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(revised from transcript)

Introduction

1. This matter comes before me on the application of the Applicant filed on 29 June 2004 in which the Applicant seeks to review the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) made on 11 May 2004.  The Tribunal decision affirmed an earlier determination by the Respondent's delegate that a protection visa should be refused to the Applicant.

2. The Applicant has not appeared today.  A formal call has been made outside the court for him.  However, he has filed, pursuant to directions, for the benefit of this hearing, his contentions of fact and law, which I have read.  I also have the benefit of the Respondent's contentions of fact and law dated 12 January 2005, which I have read.  I note that in addition to the application that was lodged by the Applicant on 29 June 2004, a further amended application was lodged on 9 December 2004.  Both from the contentions of fact and law filed by the Applicant and the amended application, it is evident that the Applicant takes issue with the factual findings of the Tribunal, and in that regard he seeks from this Court an impermissible review on the merits of the Tribunal's decision.

3. My perusal of the Tribunal's decision and the Applicant's application, as amended, and his contentions of fact and law and also the Respondent's contentions of fact and law, leaves me with the firm conviction that the Tribunal’s decision both as to the findings of fact and ultimate conclusions reached, was within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.  The Tribunal was very thorough in its exploration of the evidence presented to it, and the conclusions reached exhibit probative logic.  I cannot find any error at all, let alone jurisdictional error. 

   
   

   I also concur with the contentions put by the Respondent in respect of the issues raised in this proceeding. In the circumstances, the only course open to me is to dismiss the application of the Applicant filed on 29 June 2004 and the subsequent amended application filed on 9 December 2004.

4. In respect of the Respondent's application for costs of $5,000, that amount comes within the normal range of costs associated with this type of proceeding and I am prepared to make an award accordingly. 

I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of O’Dwyer FM

Associate: 

Date:  20 January 2005