Nwaforjeffu v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2001] FCA 750

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Nwaforjeffu v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs

[2001] FCA 750

PETER OBIORA NWAFORJEFFU v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N 173 of 2001

WILCOX J
16 MAY 2001
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 173 of 2001

BETWEEN:	PETER OBIORA NWAFORJEFFU APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE OF ORDER:	16 MAY 2001
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the respondent’s 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 173 of 2001

BETWEEN:	PETER OBIORA NWAFORJEFFU APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE:	16 MAY 2001
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

WILCOX J:

1. This application for review challenges a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal, affirming a decision to deny a protection visa to the applicant. 

2. The applicant’s case failed, before the Tribunal, because the Tribunal did not believe a great many of the claims made by the applicant.  It is not necessary for me to set out the detail for the claims, which were canvassed at considerable length in the Tribunal's reasons.

3. The Tribunal was not satisfied the applicant had suffered harm for a Convention reason in the past.  The Tribunal also considered the chance of such harm in the foreseeable future is remote.  The Tribunal said:

   “It follows that the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant has a well founded fear of persecution for a convention reason.  He is not a refugee.”

4. Counsel appeared today, seeking an adjournment of the hearing. He was apparently only detained two days ago. I refused the application because counsel was unable to give any explanation of the delay in his being retained. Furthermore, counsel was unable to give me any idea as to what ground of review might be fairly arguable in this case. This is notwithstanding the fact that counsel has had a copy of the Tribunal's reasons for two days and has read them. I myself have read these Tribunal’s reasons. I did so with some care, because I expected the applicant would not be legally represented today. Under those circumstances, I always consider for myself whether there might be evident in the Tribunal’s reasons a ground of review falling within s 476 of the Migration Act 1958. I see no such ground. It seems to me this is a case where claims were made that depended substantially upon the applicant's credibility. For reasons which were given, the Tribunal was not satisfied about the applicant's credibility. The Tribunal specifically rejected certain claims, holding they were factually improbable. There is no point of law that was fatal to the applicant's application. The general principles of law laid down at the beginning of the reasons are quite unexceptional.

5. I do not think this is a case that can be made to fit within clause 476.  Nothing has been said to raise any question in my mind about that view.  Accordingly, the appropriate course is for the application to be dismissed. 

6. The order of the Court is that the application be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Wilcox.

Associate:

Dated:             19 June 2001

Counsel for the Applicant:	I Asuzu
Counsel for the Respondent:	D Jordan
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Blake Dawson Waldron
Date of Hearing:	16 May 2001