NADP v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2003] FCAFC 178

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NADP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs
[2003] FCAFC 178

NADP v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
N 411 of 2003

BLACK CJ, HEEREY AND FINN JJ
SYDNEY

13 AUGUST 2003

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N411 OF 2003

BETWEEN:	NADP APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGES:	BLACK CJ, HEEREY AND FINN JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	13 AUGUST 2003
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

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	N411 OF 2003

BETWEEN:	NADP APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGES:	BLACK CJ, HEEREYAND FINN JJ
DATE:	13 AUGUST 2003
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

1. This is an appeal from a decision of Moore J, rejecting the appellant’s application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) affirming a decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister to refuse to grant a protection visa to the appellant.  The relevant facts and the grounds on which the appellant sought review of the Tribunal’s decision are set out in the reasons of the trial judge: see NADP v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] FCA 185. (Those reasons can be found on the Federal Court’s website:

2. The notice of appeal filed by the appellant lists one ground of appeal:

   “The procedures that were required by the law to be observed in connection with the making of the decision were not observed.”

3. The appellant was directed to file written submissions, in support of the appeal, 14 days prior to the hearing but he did not do so.  He filed submissions on the day of the hearing.  These merely repeated matters which were put to the primary judge.

4. We have read the reasons of the learned primary judge.  His Honour considered that nothing had been put to the Court that founded an argument that there had been jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal.  His Honour noted that the only conceivable point which could have been raised by the submissions was an argument based on the majority judgments of the High Court in Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal (2002) 190 ALR 601 (“Muin”).  However, there was nothing before the Court to justify the findings of fact required to create an analogous situation with Muin.  His Honour concluded that, as there was no jurisdictional error, the application should be dismissed with costs.  There is nothing before us to cast any doubt upon the correctness of his Honour’s reasons and the appeal must be dismissed.

5. The appeal must be dismissed with costs.  The appellant must pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Chief Justice Black, their Honours Justice Heerey and Justice Finn.

Associate:

Dated:             13 August 2003

Counsel for the Appellant:	The appellant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr T Reilly
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	13 August 2003
Date of Judgment:	13 August 2003