NADF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2003] FCAFC 96

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NADF v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 96

MIGRATION – appeal from judicial review of Refugee Review Tribunal – failure to demonstrate jurisdictional error

NADF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 1569 upheld

NADF v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs
N10 of 2003

HEEREY, EMMETT & HELY JJ
20 May 2003
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N10 OF 2003

BETWEEN:	NADF APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGES:	HEEREY, EMMETT AND HELY JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	20 MAY 2003
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The appeal 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	N10 OF 2003

BETWEEN:	NADF APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGES:	HEEREY, EMMETT AND HELY JJ
DATE:	20 MAY 2003
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal from a Judge of this Court who dismissed the appellant’s application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal: NADF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 1569.

2. The appellant was not legally represented before his Honour, or before us.

3. The appellant’s claims for refugee status, the course the proceedings took before the Tribunal and the Tribunal’s reasons for affirming the decision not to grant the appellant a protection visa are fully set out in his Honour’s judgment.

4. In brief, the appellant claimed that he had been an executive in a Chinese corporation and had been responsible for the investment of $US 1 million for a proposed joint venture with a Chilean firm.  That firm had cancelled the project and had refused to refund the money.  The appellant claimed that because of this he would be imprisoned if he were returned to China.

5. The appellant failed to provide further information sought by the Tribunal.

6. His Honour could not discern any basis for holding that the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error.  Even if the appellant’s claims were taken at face value they would not establish that he feared persecution on one of the five grounds set out in the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

7. The appellant’s notice of appeal asserted as grounds:

   (1) The procedures that were required by law to be observed in connection with the making of the decision and in connection with conduct for the purpose of making the decision were not observed.

   (2)The decision involves errors of law.

8. There was no failure to follow procedures.  In particular the Tribunal complied with the requirements of the Migration Act1958 (Cth) in relation to seeking further information and affording the appellant a hearing.

9. No error of law is disclosed.

10. His Honour’s decision was plainly correct.

11. The appeal will be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding eleven (11) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Court.

Associate:

Dated:             20 May 2003

Applicant appeared in person:
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr J D Smith
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Blake Dawson Waldron
Date of Hearing:	20 May 2003
Date of Judgment:	20 May 2003