NALQ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2002] FCA 1169

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NALQ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs

[2002] FCA 1169

NALQ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

N 576 of 2002

WILCOX J
13 SEPTEMBER 2002
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N576 of 2002

BETWEEN:	NALQ APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE OF ORDER:	13 SEPTEMBER 2002
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application be dismissed.

2.        The applicant pay the costs of the respondent.

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	N576 of 2002

BETWEEN:	NALQ APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE:	13 SEPTEMBER 2002
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

WILCOX J:

1. This is an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal.  The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant a protection visa to the applicant.  The applicant claimed a well founded fear of persecution on the ground of political opinion if he returned to his native country, Bangladesh. 

2. The applicant made it clear to me today that he is dissatisfied with the Tribunal’s decision.  He said it was evident that the Tribunal did not give enough importance to his “side of the story”.  The applicant said the “country information”, on which the Tribunal relied, was not correct. 

3. I understand very well the case made by the applicant.  The applicant said he had not been given justice by the Tribunal and he has come to the Court to obtain justice.  The difficulty, as I pointed out to the applicant earlier, is that the power of this Court is extremely limited.  The Court does not have a general power to deliver what an applicant might consider to be justice.  The Court can only do justice according to some very restrictive laws.  In particular, the Court has no authority to review the Tribunal’s findings of fact.  From the applicant’s point of view, the problem is that his grievance concerns the Tribunal’s findings of fact.  The Court cannot enter into that area.  If the Court were to do this, it would be in conflict with the legislation passed by the Australian Parliament. 

4. The only grounds of review available in the Court are a limited number of legal and procedural grounds.  The applicant does not seek to rely on any of those grounds. 

5. I read the Tribunal’s decision before I came into court today.  I assumed the applicant would not have the benefit of legal representation.  For that reason, I considered for myself whether there appeared to be any ground of review available to the applicant in this case.  I could find none.  It was apparent to me that the applicant failed before the Tribunal because the Tribunal did not accept the correctness of many of the claims that he made.  That was a matter for the Tribunal to determine; it involved findings of fact. 

6. There was nothing in the decision to indicate the existence of any ground of which the Court can take cognisance.  Under the circumstances, I have no option other than to dismiss the application for review.  The order of the Court is that the application be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Wilcox.

Associate:

Dated:             13 September 2002

The Applicant appeared in person.
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr G Johnson
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing:	13 September 2002