NALN v Minister for Immigration
[2002] FMCA 203
•22 August 2002
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| NALN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION | [2002] FMCA 203 |
MIGRATION – Review of decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal affirming a decision of a delegate of the Minister refusing to grant a protection visa – no grounds for review advanced – application dismissed.
| Applicant: | NALN |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
| File No: | SZ509 of 2002 |
| Delivered on: | 22 August 2002 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Hearing Date: | 22 August 2002 |
| Judgment of: | Driver FM |
REPRESENTATION
| Applicant appeared in person |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Ms B Rayment Sparke Helmore |
ORDERS
Application dismissed.
Applicant to pay respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application, fixed at $2,500.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SZ509 of 2002
| NALN |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
I have before me an application to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the RRT”) made on 23 April 2002 affirming a decision of the delegate of the respondent Minister to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa. The background circumstances are accurately set out in paragraphs one, two, three, four, five, six and seven of the written submissions prepared on behalf of the Minister.
I adopt that statement of background facts as accurate for the purposes of these proceedings.
The applicant provided no grounds for his application for review but he provided an affidavit made on 17 June 2002 in support of his application. The applicant also elaborated on that affidavit orally before me today. In essence, the applicant experienced problems when he came to Australia with some other people ostensibly for the purposes of making a movie. Money was collected from individuals ostensibly for the purposes of the movie but the money has apparently been lost and the movie has not been made.
This has caused problems for the applicant and he has been afraid to return to India. The RRT noted the circumstances put forward by the applicant but concluded, correctly in my view, that the applicant did not fear persecution for a reason recognised in the Refugees Convention. The applicant has admitted to me that he is not seeking refugee status but rather, that he is simply seeking to stay in Australia for a period until it is safe for him to return to India.
To this point it seems that the applicant has achieved his objective. It is, however, obvious that there is no basis on which I could disturb the decision of the RRT. Therefore I must dismiss the application.
Ms Rayment, on behalf of the Minister, has estimated that the costs incurred by the Minister in these proceedings is in the order of $3,000. In my view, it is appropriate in proceedings of this nature that costs be awarded on a party/party basis which indicates an award of costs of a somewhat lesser amount. My usual practice is to fix the amount of costs to be award in migration proceedings. I will order that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of this application which I fix in the amount of $2,500.
In making that order I note that Ms Rayment has indicated for the record that in view of the admissions made by the applicant in these proceedings, if there are further proceedings in respect of the application for a Protection Visa, it is likely that the Minister would seek costs on an indemnity basis for any further legal expenses incurred.
I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Driver FM
Associate:
Date: 16 September 2002
0
0
0