NAGW v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2003] FCAFC 173

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NAGW v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs
[2003] FCAFC 173

NAGW v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
N 467 of 2003

BLACK CJ, HEEREY AND FINN JJ
SYDNEY
12 AUGUST 2003

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 467 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

NAGW
FIRST APPELLANT

NAGX
SECOND APPELLANT

NAGY
THIRD APPELLANT

NAGZ
FOURTH APPELLANT

NAHA
FIFTH APPELLANT

NAHB
SIXTH APPELLANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

BLACK CJ, HEEREY AND FINN JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

12 AUGUST 2003

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2. The first and fourth appellants 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	N 467 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

NAGW
FIRST APPELLANT

NAGX
SECOND APPELLANT

NAGY
THIRD APPELLANT

NAGZ
FOURTH APPELLANT

NAHA
FIFTH APPELLANT

NAHB
SIXTH APPELLANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:	BLACK CJ, HEEREY AND FINN JJ
DATE:	12 AUGUST 2003
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

1. This is an appeal from a decision of Wilcox J, rejecting the appellants’ 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 protection visas to six persons of Bangladesh nationality.  The relevant facts and the grounds on which the appellants sought review of the Tribunal’s decision are set out in the reasons of the trial judge: see NAGW v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] FCA 272. (Those reasons can be found on the Federal Court’s website:

2. The notice of appeal lists four grounds of appeal, which assert that the primary judge failed to find error of law, jurisdictional error and procedural fairness.  The notice of appeal seems to be directed towards the conclusion that the Tribunal should have reached a decision favourable to the appellants.

3. The appellants were directed to file written submissions, in support of the appeal, 14 days prior to the hearing.  They have not done so.

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 concluded that, as there was no jurisdictional error, he had no option but to dismiss the application.  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 respondent’s counsel indicated at the hearing that he only sought costs against the adult appellants.  The first and fourth appellants 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:             12 August 2003

Counsel for the Appellants:	The first appellant appeared in person on behalf of all appellants
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr J Smith
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	12 August 2003
Date of Judgment:	12 August 2003