NALO v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NALO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2002] FMCA 204

MIGRATION – Review of decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal affirming a delegate’s decision to refuse to grant a protection visa – privative clause – available grounds of review considered – no reviewable error found.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.424A

Hashimi v Minister for Immigration [2002] FCA 998
NAAV v Minister for Immigration [2002] FCAFC 228
NAIN v Minister for Immigration [2002] FMCA 177
NANM v Minister for Immigration [2002] FCA 1106
WADK v Minister for Immigration [2002] FMCA 175

Applicant: NALO

Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File No: SZ546 of 2002

Delivered on: 11 September 2002

Delivered at: Sydney

Hearing Date: 11 September 2002

Judgment of: Driver FM

REPRESENTATION

The applicant appeared in person

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr J Smith

Solicitors for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore

ORDERS

1. Application dismissed.

2. Applicant to pay respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application, fixed at $4,400.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SZ546 of 2002

NALO

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION &
MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This ex tempore judgment relates to an application filed on 18 June 2002 to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the RRT”) affirming a decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa.  The application is supported by an affidavit filed on the same day by the applicant in which she sets out her concerns about the decision of the RRT.  I have also heard from her orally today.  I have also had the benefit of written submissions prepared in response to the application by Mr Smith, for the respondent Minister.

2. The decision of the RRT was made on 24 April 2002, and I assume handed down subsequently.  The basic facts relevant to this application are that the applicant is a citizen of Ukraine who claimed to be a journalist, and who claimed to be at risk of persecution and to have been persecuted in her capacity as a journalist working for a newspaper in Ukraine.  The basic facts are set out in the decision of the RRT on pages 166 to 167 of the court book and I do not need to restate them here.

3. The applicant, in her affidavit and in her oral submissions today, makes the following complaints about the RRT decision.  First, she says the approach taken by the RRT was biased and she supports that by reference to observations made by the RRT about her inability to identify accurately the circulation of the newspaper she says that she worked for.  The difference between the circulation identified by the applicant and the circulation identified by the presiding member was very great, a factor of approximately 4, and it is not surprising that the presiding member placed some weight on the applicant's lack of knowledge about the circulation of the newspaper.

4. In my view, the observation made by…