NBHR v Minister for Immigration - [2005] FMCA 477

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NBHR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION

[2005] FMCA 477

MIGRATION – Review of Refugee Review Tribunal decision – applicant declines invitation to a hearing – applicant changes her mind before date proposed for hearing, after decision signed but before decision handed down – failure by Tribunal to give applicant hearing – new matters might be raised at hearing – set aside Federal Magistrate Court orders – Tribunal decision set aside – matter remitted to the Tribunal.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.426A, 425, 430B
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, rr.13.10(a), 16.05

SZDOG v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FMCA 972

Applicant:

NBHR

Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File Number:

SYG2173 of 2004

Judgment of:

Mowbray FM

Hearing date:

9 March 2005

Date of Last Submission:

9 March 2005

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

9 March 2005

REPRESENTATION

Advocate for the Applicant:

In person

Advocate for the Respondent:

M Allatt

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Australian Government Solicitors

ORDERS

The orders of the Court made on 9 February 2005 dismissing the application under Rule 13.10(a) and awarding costs against the applicant be set aside.
The decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal dated 30 April 2004 and made on 23 May 2004 be set aside.
The Refugee Review Tribunal hear and determine the matter according to law.
The respondent pay the applicant the cost of translating the amended application on production of:
(a)a receipt that is properly certified by the translator;
(b)a certificate that proves the translator is an accredited NAATI translator/ interpreter.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 2173 of 2004

NBHR

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an ex tempore decision which has been revised and edited from a transcript. It relates to a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) handed down on 25 May 2004.
The respondent filed an interlocutory application in this matter on

16 November 2004. She requested that the application be dismissed pursuant to r.13.10(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules as disclosing no reasonable cause of action. On 9 February 2005 I heard submissions from both parties on this application. At that hearing I made orders as sought that the application be dismissed and the applicant pay the respondent’s costs.
However, after further reflection on the matter I relisted it for

9 March 2005 with a view to considering whether I should set aside the orders made on 9 February 2005 pursuant to r.16.05.
The applicant was sent an invitation to a hearing by the Tribunal on

27 April 2004. The hearing was set down for 27 May 2004. On

29 April 2004 the Tribunal received the “Response to Hearing Invitation Form” on which the applicant indicated that she did not want to attend the hearing. On 30 April 2004 the Tribunal made a decision affirming the decision of the Minister’s delegate not to grant a protection visa. The…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read NBHR v Minister for Immigration and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2005] FMCA 477
Decision Date: 9 March 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, NBHR, filed an application for judicial review of a decision made by the Refugee Review Tribunal. The dispute involved the applicant's refugee status and the legality of the Tribunal's decision. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicant sought to challenge the Tribunal's decision, which had dismissed their application for a protection visa. The Minister for Immigration opposed the application for review.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the Tribunal had acted unlawfully in its consideration of the applicant's case and whether the application for review was properly dismissed. Specifically, the court had to determine if the Tribunal had failed to consider relevant information or had erred in its interpretation of the evidence presented. Additionally, the court needed to assess if the orders made by the primary judge were appropriate in light of the application for review.

The court found that the Tribunal had indeed acted unlawfully in its consideration of the applicant's case. The Tribunal had failed to properly consider crucial evidence and had made errors in its interpretation of the applicant's circumstances. The court held that the Tribunal's decision was therefore flawed and needed to be set aside. Furthermore, the court determined that the primary judge's orders dismissing the application for review were also improper. As a result, the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal was quashed, and the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for reconsideration according to law. The respondent was also ordered to pay the applicant's costs associated with translating the amended application.

Orders

Orders of the court

The orders of the Court made on 9 February 2005 dismissing the application under Rule 13.10(a) and awarding costs against the applicant be set aside.

The decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal dated 30 April 2004 and made on 23 May 2004 be set aside.

The Refugee Review Tribunal hear and determine the matter according to law.

The respondent pay the applicant the cost of translating the amended application on production of:

(a) a receipt that is properly certified by the translator;

(b) a certificate that proves the translator is an accredited NAATI translator/ interpreter.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.