NAFL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2005] FCA 1534

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NAFL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1534

MIGRATION – no point of principle

NAFL v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
NSD 1893 OF 2005

MOORE J
31 OCTOBER 2005
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1893 OF 2005

BETWEEN:	NAFL APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	MOORE J
DATE OF ORDER:	31 OCTOBER 2005
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.

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	NSD 1893 OF 2005

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

JUDGE:	MOORE J
DATE:	31 OCTOBER 2005
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for leave to appeal against a judgment of a Federal Magistrate of 19 September 2005. The Federal Magistrate dismissed as incompetent an application seeking constitutional writs filed on 1 July 2005 because the application had been filed outside the time limits prescribed by s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The application before the Federal Magistrate sought judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal of 22 October 2002.

2. In earlier proceedings in this Court, the applicant challenged the Tribunal's decision.  Both Hely J, on 8 April 2003, and the Full Court, on 25 November 2003, rejected the contention that the Tribunal had fallen into jurisdictional error.  The applicant unsuccessfully sought special leave to appeal to the High Court from the judgment of the Full Court.

3. In my opinion the Federal Magistrate was correct in determining that the time limit in s 477 applied because the applicant had not been able to demonstrate that the decision of the Tribunal, to which the application filed on 1 July 2005 related, was not a privative clause decision.

4. Accordingly, I order the application for leave to appeal be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore.

Associate:

Dated:             16 November 2005

The Applicant appeared in person.
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Blake Dawson Waldron
Date of Hearing:	31 October 2005
Date of Judgment:	31 October 2005