NAFV v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2003] FCA 444

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NAFV v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 444

NAFV V MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

N 1345 OF 2002

JACOBSON J
1 MAY 2003
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 1345 of 2002

BETWEEN:	NAFV APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	JACOBSON J
DATE OF ORDER:	1 MAY 2003
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application is dismissed.

2.The applicant to pay the respondent's costs of this application.

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 1345 of 2002

BETWEEN:	NAFV APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	JACOBSON J
DATE:	1 MAY 2003
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. I have before me this morning an application filed on 16 December 2002 seeking an order that a decision made by the Refugee Review Tribunal (“RRT”) on 4 November 2002 be set aside.

2. The RRT in its decision of 4 November 2002 affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister given on 29 October 2001 refusing to grant a protection visa to the applicant.

3. The application is deficient in form because it does not identify any reviewable error, nor does it allege any error of law referrable to s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) or otherwise.

4. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant on 10 December 2002 and filed on 16 December 2002.  The affidavit contains three short paragraphs which contain only details of the applicant's citizenship and his arrival in Australia, the lodgement of an application for a protection visa, the refusal by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs of the application and the application to the RRT and the dismissal of the application by the RRT.

5. Directions were made by a registrar for the filing of an amended application if the applicant thought it appropriate.  Directions were also made for the applicant to file written submissions if he wished to do so.  No amended application or written submissions were filed.

6. Notwithstanding the defects in the form of the application, I gave the applicant this morning an opportunity to address me orally.

7. The only matter which the applicant put to me this morning was that he takes issue with the factual findings made against him by the RRT.  He identified no error going to the jurisdiction and it is plain that the application must be dismissed.

8. I should add that I have read the decision and reasons of the RRT dated 4 November 2002 carefully.  It is clear enough that the RRT rejected the claims of the applicant because it did not accept the truth of the claims which he made.  I find that the reasons for the RRT’s decision reveal no error which could constitute jurisdictional error and as I have already said the application must be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, the orders which I make are that the application is dismissed and I order the applicant to pay the respondent's costs of this application.

I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Jacobson.

Associate:

Date:              12 May 2003

The appellant appeared in person.
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr A Markus
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	1 May 2003
Date of Judgment:	1 May 2003