NALT v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NALT v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2002] FMCA 267

MIGRATION: Application for review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal – no jurisdictional error – privative clause decision – application dismissed.

Judiciary Act 1903
Migration Act 1958
Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Act 2001

NAAV v MIMIA [2002] FCAFC 228
Muin v RRT [2002] HCA 30
R v Hickman; Ex parte Fox & Clinton (1945) 70 CLR 598
NADR v MIMIA [2002] FCA 293
Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163
SBBK v MIMIA [2002] FCA 565
NAAG v MIMIA [2002] FCA 713
Zahid v MIMIA [2002] FCA 1108
NANG v MIMIA [2002] FCA 1138

Applicant: NALT

Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File No: SZ590 of 2002

Delivered on: 20 November 2002

Delivered at: Sydney

Hearing Date: 10 October 2002

Judgment of: Barnes FM

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Nil

Solicitors for the Applicant: Michael Jones

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr R. Bromwich

Solicitors for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

1. That the application be dismissed.

2. That the applicant pay the respondent’s costs.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SZ590 of 2002

NALT

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL
& INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The application

1. This is an application for relief under s.39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 in respect of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) which was handed on 23 May 2002 affirming a decision of a delegate of the respondent to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa. 

2. The applicant applied to the Federal Court on 20 June 2002 and the matter was transferred to this Court on 22 July 2002 by Moore J. 

3. In his original application and accompanying affidavit the applicant argued that the Tribunal had failed to take into account relevant considerations or ignored relevant material and hence made its decision in breach of an indispensable condition for the exercise of its power under the Migration Act 1958 or failed to properly exercise its jurisdiction under that Act.  By an amended application filed on
   15 August 2002 the applicant included as a ground of review the ground that the Tribunal failed to comply with the “overriding duty to accord procedural fairness to the applicant, with the result that the decision was beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to make”. 

Background

1. The applicant is an ethnic Indian citizen of Fiji.  He arrived in Australia on 16 December 2000 and applied for a protection visa on 29 January 2001.  In his application he claimed that he was forced to work (as a mechanic) for no payment for members of the Taukei movement in Fiji and that when he could not repair their vehicles as quickly as required they would start kicking him and punching him.  He also claimed that his belongings were taken and properties damaged.  He claimed that sometimes they “would put the gun on my back and force me to repair their vehicle fast or else they…