NARD of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2003] FCA 580

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NARD of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs

[2003] FCA 580

NARD OF 2002 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

N 334 OF 2003

WHITLAM J
11 JUNE 2003
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 334 OF 2003

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	NARD OF 2002 APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	WHITLAM J
DATE OF ORDER:	11 JUNE 2003
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.  The appeal be dismissed with costs.

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	N 334 OF 2003

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	NARD OF 2002 APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	WHITLAM J
DATE:	11 JUNE 2003
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court dismissing with costs an application in respect of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) handed down on 18 July 2002 affirming the decision of the respondent’s delegate not to grant a protection visa to the appellant: NARD of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FMCA 60.

2. The only ground of appeal is that the magistrate “did not consider procedural fairness made by the Refugee Review Tribunal”.  In fact, the magistrate at [17] did consider this question and held that no lack of procedural fairness had been established by the appellant. 

3. At the hearing today the appellant, having first canvassed the merits of his application for a protection visa before the Tribunal, repeated the bare assertion that his case was like that of the applicants in Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal (2002) 76 ALJR 966. However, for the reasons given by the magistrate, that case is distinguishable from the present one and her conclusion on this issue was correct.

4. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed with costs.,

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Whitlam.

Associate:

Dated:             16 June 2003

Appellant appeared in person.
Counsel for the Respondent:	J D Smith
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	11 June 2003
Date of Judgment:	11 June 2003