NACC v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NACC v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 333

MIGRATION:  application for review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal affirming Minister’s delegate’s decision not to grant protection visa under the Migration Act 1968 (Cth) – application dismissed

Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)

Chan Yee Kim v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (1989) 169 CLR 379 referred to
Azzi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 24 referred to
R v Hickman; Ex parte Fox & Clinton (1945) 70 CLR 598 referred to

NACC v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs
N 1548 of 2001

ALLSOP J

12 MARCH 2002

SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 1548 of 2001

BETWEEN:	NACC APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	ALLSOP J
DATE OF ORDER:	12 MARCH 2002
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.  the application be dismissed; and

2.  the applicant pay the respondent's 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 1548 of 2001

BETWEEN:	NACC APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	ALLSOP J
DATE:	12 MARCH 2002
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant in these proceedings seeks relief under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) in respect of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) dated 3 October 2001, provided to him on 25 October 2001. The Tribunal's decision was to affirm a decision which had been made by a delegate of the respondent Minister not to grant to the applicant a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The date of the decision requires the rights of the applicant to be determined by reference to the amendments to the Act passed by the Commonwealth Parliament in the second half of 2001.  One aspect of that legislation passed by Parliament was s 91X of the Act which in terms forbids this Court from publishing, in electronic form or otherwise, in relation to the proceedings, the person’s name.  The applicant's name has been excised from discussion by both counsel, and the applicant's name does not appear on the proceedings and application.  Rather, there is an anonymous appearance of four letters.  The applicant should understand that this procedure has not been adopted through any discourtesy of this Court to his position or to the necessity to understand and evaluate his individual position, but is required by (I assume to be the constitutionally valid provision) s 91X, of the Act.

3. Returning to the application, the applicant is a national of Bangladesh who arrived in Australia on a visitor’s visa in September 1997.  It is unnecessary to identify in any detail the course of his application for a protection visa, save that he claimed to be…