Re Niagara Mining Ltd

[2002] FCA 165

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Mezbur v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 165

ASIM MEZBUR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N 1527 of 2001

WHITLAM J
20 FEBRUARY 2002
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 1527 of 2001

BETWEEN:	ASIM MEZBUR APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	WHITLAM J
DATE OF ORDER:	20 FEBRUARY 2002
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application is 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 1527 of 2001

BETWEEN:	ASIM MEZBUR APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	WHITLAM J
DATE:	20 FEBRUARY 2002
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This proceeding relates to a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) affirming a decision of a delegate of the respondent (“the Minister”) made on 15 December 1999 to order the deportation of Asim Mezbur (“the applicant”).  The decision of the Tribunal was given on 26 October 2001.  Section 483 of the Migration Act1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) provides that s 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) has no application to this decision of the Tribunal and, therefore, an appeal from the Tribunal is not available. The applicant lodged in the New South Wales District Registry an application on 15 November 2001 described as an application for an order of review. The application is completed in handwriting and notifies no grounds that could be readily identified as grounds of review available under the former Pt 8 of the Act. In terms of describing why the applicant is aggrieved by the decision, the applicant says that he is aggrieved “because the judge was bias towards me when making his decision he didn’t take into account my son, health or hardship that I would face [if] deported".

2. The reasons for decision of the Tribunal comprise some 26 pages and 83 paragraphs and set out comprehensively the background to the matter and the evidence given by the applicant before the Tribunal.  Evidence was also given by Nevzeta Akeljic, a former de facto wife of the applicant.  The Tribunal’s statement summarizes the submissions made on behalf of the Minister and what the applicant said to the Tribunal in support of his own case.  Although strictly speaking it is not an appeal, the papers prepared for the hearing of this matter have been described as “appeal papers” and include the s 37 documents before the Tribunal and the documentary tender made by the applicant in the Tribunal.  The appeal papers also include some material that was evidently sought by the Tribunal from the Minister relating to the current situation in Bosnia Herzegovina. 

3. Leaving aside for the moment the effect of the amendments made to the Act which came into force in October 2001, the applicant engages with the…