S1053 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal
[2005] FCA 1444
•20 OCTOBER 2005
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
S1053 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2005] FCA 1444
S1053 of 2003 v REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL AND MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
NSD 2690 of 2003
BRANSON J
20 OCTOBER 2005
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 2690 of 2003
ON REMITTAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
S1053 of 2003
APPLICANTAND:
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
FIRST RESPONDENTMINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENTJUDGE:
BRANSON J
DATE OF ORDER:
20 OCTOBER 2005
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application for an order nisi be dismissed.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 2690 of 2003
ON REMITTAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
S1053 of 2003
APPLICANTAND:
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
FIRST RESPONDENTMINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
BRANSON J
DATE:
20 OCTOBER 2005
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
On 13 March 2001, the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs refusing the applicant a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (‘the Act’).
The applicant filed an application for an order nisi in the High Court on 1 July 2003 requiring the respondents to show cause why constitutional writs should not be issued in respect of the Tribunal’s decision. The application was remitted to this Court pursuant to orders made by Gaudron J, as varied by McHugh J, following the delivery of the High Court’s judgment in Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal (2002) 76 ALJR 966.
The applicant, a citizen of India, supported his application for an order nisi by an affidavit sworn on 25 May 2003 by the applicant’s then instructing solicitor. By correspondence of 12 November 2004, the District Registrar of the Federal Court informed the applicant that the Court proposed to consider whether there is an arguable case for the granting of an order nisi on the basis of written material before the Court. The applicant was invited to provide written submissions on the question of whether the Court should make an order nisi and did so on 10 December 2004.
I propose to deal with this application on the papers.
The affidavit filed in support of the application contends that the Tribunal took into account written submissions from the Secretary, Department of Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs made pursuant to s 423(2) of the Act without bringing the submissions to the attention of the applicant or providing the applicant with an opportunity to comment on them. Neither the affidavit nor the applicant’s submission provide further material in support of this contention.
The Tribunal’s reasons for decision do not refer submissions made pursuant to s 423(2) of the Act and there is no other indication that such submissions were received or considered by the Tribunal in the making of its decision.
The Tribunal’s reasons for decision refer to a letter sent to the Minister by the applicant’s wife in India that casts doubt on some of the applicant’s claims. However, the applicant was given an opportunity to comment on the letter at the hearing and subsequently pursuant to a notice issued under s 424A of the Act. The applicant provided a response on the matters raised in the letter.
The Tribunal also appears to have afforded the applicant a reasonable opportunity to comment on other material before the Tribunal that was adverse to the applicant.
On the material before me, the applicant has not made out an arguable case that the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error. The application for an order nisi should therefore be dismissed.
I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Branson. Associate:
Dated: 20 October 2005
The applicant is self-represented. Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor Date of Judgment: 20 October 2005
0
1
0