NAQJ v MIMIA

[2004] FCA 946

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NAQJ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs
[2004] FCA 946

COURTS AND JUDICIAL SYSTEM – appeal from a decision of a Federal Magistrate – where grounds of appeal were not relied upon before the Federal Magistrate – whether new grounds have no reasonable prospect of success – whether expedient in the interests of justice to allow new grounds to be relied upon

MIGRATION LAW – appeal from a decision of a Federal Magistrate – alleged fear of persecution by reason of religion – whether clash of religious doctrine essential – whether wish not to comply with all or part of the rites of a religion sufficient – grounds of appeal to be considered in context of claims made by appellant

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 91R

H v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2000) 63 ALD 43 cited
Iyer v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1788 cited
Prashar v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 57 approved
SZABS v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 852 cited

NAQJ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

N 848 of 2004

BRANSON J
22 JULY 2004
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 848 of 2004

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	NAQJ APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	BRANSON J
DATE OF ORDER:	22 JULY 2004
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 848 of 2004

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	NAQJ APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	BRANSON J
DATE:	22 JULY 2004
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court exercising jurisdiction under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (‘the Act’). On 6 May 2004 Federal Magistrate Barnes dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) which affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent not to grant the appellant a protection visa.

2. For the reasons set out below I have concluded that the appeal should be dismissed.

   GROUNDS OF APPEAL

3. The original notice of appeal was filed by the appellant before the reasons for decision of the Federal Magistrate were available to the appellant in writing.  It may be for this reason that it shows little, if any, connection with the decision of the Federal Magistrate.  Sackville J gave the appellant leave to file and serve any ‘amended application’ by 24 June 2004.  It is plain that his Honour’s order was intended to refer to an amended notice of appeal.  The appellant filed an amended notice of appeal, which carries the heading ‘Amended Application’ on 25 June 2004.  The…