NAID v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2003] FCA 273

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NAID v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 273

NAID v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

N 38 of 2003

WILCOX J
25 MARCH 2003
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 38 of 2003

BETWEEN:	NAID APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE OF ORDER:	25 MARCH 2003
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the costs of the respondent, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs.

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 38 of 2003

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

JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE:	25 MARCH 2003
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

WILCOX J:

1. This is an application to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”), affirming a decision of a delegate of the respondent, Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs.  The delegate had refused the applicant's application for a protection visa because he was not satisfied that the applicant was a refugee within the meaning of the Convention on Refugees 1951, as amended by the Protocol on Refugees 1976.

2. The Tribunal affirmed the decision because it was not satisfied of the factual correctness of key elements in the claims made by the applicant.  The applicant tendered to the Tribunal a number of documents that he argued supported his claims.  However, the Tribunal was not satisfied these documents were genuine.  The Tribunal gave reasons for the decision, in which findings of fact were set out.  The reasons for those findings was also disclosed. 

3. The applicant appeared on his own behalf today, with the assistance of an interpreter.  He handed to me a two-page document setting out submissions.  There were five points.  All five relate to the Tribunal's view of the facts of the case. 

4. The written submission confirms what I had already understood from the applicant’s oral submissions, namely that he is unhappy about the Tribunal’s conclusions of fact.  However, the Court cannot review the Tribunal’s findings of fact.  I explained the position to the applicant at a directions hearing on 13 February 2003. 

5. I note the applicant has had the benefit of legal advice from a member of the panel arranged through the Court with the Bar Association and the Law Society of New South Wales.  No point of law or procedure has been raised on the applicant’s behalf. 

6. As I anticipated that the applicant would not be legally represented today, I carefully read the Tribunal's reasons for decision.  The purpose of doing so was to determine whether it indicated the possibility that the Tribunal had made a jurisdictional error that could be reviewed by the Court.  However, I see no such error.  The claim failed because key elements were not accepted by the Tribunal.  It follows that the application for review must be dismissed.  

7. The appropriate order is that the application be dismissed with costs. 

I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Wilcox.

Associate:

Dated:            9 April 2003

The applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr S Lloyd
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	25 March 2003