Navunisinu v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2000] FCA 638

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Navunisinu v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs
[2000] FCA 638

JOPE NAVUNISINU v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N 1446 OF 1999

GYLES J
SYDNEY
24 FEBRUARY 2000

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 1446 OF 1999

BETWEEN:	JOPE NAVUNISINU APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	GYLES J
DATE OF ORDER:	24 FEBRUARY 2000
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application is dismissed
2. The applicant to pay the respondent’s costs

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 1446 OF 1999

BETWEEN:	JOPE NAVUNISINU APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	GYLES J
DATE:	24 FEBRUARY 2000
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 13 December 1999 the Migration Review Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Minister's delegate, refusing to grant to the applicant a Bridging Visa E (Class WE) subclass 050 (Bridging Visa (General)).  On 15 December 1999, the applicant filed an application in this Court, and despite the matter having been before the Court on two previous occasions, when directions were given, no grounds have been included in the application.

2. The applicant has not, today, either sought to amend his application, or to produce any material in support of his case.  The document marked Exhibit “A” is not directed to the substance of the application.  The applicant points to no reviewable error in the decision of the Tribunal.  The solicitor for the respondent submits that there is no reviewable error.  It is not my task to comb through the Tribunal decision to find error.

3. I have read the Tribunal decision in order to familiarise myself with the case.  All I can say is that no error presented itself to me.  It seems to me that this application is totally without merit.  It has involved much public expense and the waste of the time of the court on three separate occasions.  The application is dismissed and I order that the applicant pay the costs to the respondent.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Gyles.

Associate:

Dated:             15 May 2000

Counsel for the Applicant:	Applicant in person
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	24 February 2000
Date of Judgment:	24 February 2000