Salim v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[1999] FCA 1131

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Salim v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs

[1999] FCA 1131

MOHAMMAD SALIM v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

N 208 OF 1999

GYLES J
SYDNEY
30 JULY 1999

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 208 OF 1999

BETWEEN:	MOHAMMAD SALIM Applicant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent
JUDGE:	GYLES
DATE OF ORDER:	30 JULY 1999
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

2.        The applicant pay the costs of the respondent.

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 208 OF 1999

BETWEEN:	MOHAMMAD SALIM Applicant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent

JUDGE:	GYLES
DATE:	30 JULY 1999
PLACE:	SYDNEY

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The application in this matter was filed on 16 March 1999, it being an application to review the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) made on 10 February 1999 affirming the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The respondent submits that the basis of the application and the grounds for it do not disclose any grounds for review within s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

2. The matter came before O'Connor J on 5 May 1999, when directions as to evidence and submissions were given and the matter was listed for hearing today.  On 5 May 1999, Mr Salim (“the applicant”) was present himself in Court, and it appears from a letter of the same date from the Australian Government Solicitor to the applicant that he appeared on that occasion with the assistance of a migration agent, Boni Anin.

3. The letter to which I have referred set out the effect of the orders which were made on that day and enclosed a list of organisations which might be able to assist the applicant with his application.  Those organisations included the Legal Aid Commission, the Law Society of New South Wales, the New South Wales Bar Association and community legal centres.  The letter also said that the Australian Government Solicitor had written to the Court requesting that a Bengali language interpreter be arranged for the hearing, and asked the applicant to let Andrew Pearson of the Australian Government Solicitor’s office know if he was able to retain a barrister or solicitor to act for him.

4. On 29 July 1999, the Australian Government Solicitor again wrote to the applicant, informing him that if there was no appearance at the hearing orders would be sought seeking the dismissal of the application.  The letter enclosed an outline of the respondent’s submissions. 

5. The applicant acknowledges that he received the two letters in question.  He has not given any account of any endeavours he has made to obtain legal assistance. I informed him that he was able to give evidence before me today if he wished.  He did not take advantage of that opportunity. Evidence or not, he has simply given no account of any endeavours to obtain legal assistance, and the only explanation he has offered is that he has no sufficient money.  The organisations to which he was referred, of course, may have been in a position to assist him with or without means.

6. No submissions have been filed by the applicant pursuant to the directions of O'Connor J. A Bengali interpreter is present, and has been interpreting for the applicant during the whole of the proceedings for which the applicant has been present.

7. It is relevant in considering the position generally to take account of the proceedings before the Tribunal.  The Tribunal advised the applicant that it was unable to make a favourable decision on the material before it, and invited the applicant to give oral evidence.  The applicant did not avail himself of that opportunity. 

8. The applicant sought an adjournment of the proceedings today in order to take steps to obtain legal advice and because he said that he was not in a mental state to pursue the matter today.  As I have said, there is no evidence of either of these matters.  He was unable to or did not explain why he had not approached the respondent prior to coming to Court today with a request that there be an application for adjournment, and he really proffers no explanation at all as to why he has done nothing to fit himself to pursue his application.  In those circumstances, as the respondent opposed the adjournment, I refused it. 

9. The applicant says he is not in a position to pursue his application today, so I am proceeding now to deal with it on the material before me.  I have read his application and the grounds stated in it.  I have read the Tribunal decision.  I have also read and considered the submissions for the respondent filed in accordance with the directions of O’Connor J, which were also served on, and received by, the applicant.  The application does not properly particularise any ground of review, so that alone is sufficient to warrant the dismissal of the application.  However, having read what the applicant says and having considered the decision itself, and the principles referred to by the respondent, in my view, broadly for the reasons submitted by the respondent, I do not believe that the applicant has any proper basis for a successful appeal, bearing in mind the very limited basis upon which this Court can interfere with Tribunal decisions as a result of the form of the legislation and recent High Court decisions in relation to that legislation.  I therefore dismiss the application with costs.

I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice GYLES.

Associate:

Dated:             26 August 1999

The Applicant represented himself.
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr T Reilly
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	30 July 1999
Date of Judgment:	30 July 1999