Senavirantna-Mudiyanselage v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[1999] FCA 1024

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Senavirantna-Mudiyanselage v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 1024

RUWANTHA KUMARI SENAVIRANTNA-MUDIYANSELAGE v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

DRUMMOND J
22 JULY 1999
BRISBANE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	Q 44 OF 1999

BETWEEN:	RUWANTHA KUMARI SENAVIRANTNA-MUDIYANSELAGE Applicant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent

JUDGE:	DRUMMOND J
DATE OF ORDER:	22 JULY 1999
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	Q 44 OF 1999

BETWEEN:	RUWANTHA KUMARI SENAVIRANTNA-MUDIYANSELAGE Applicant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent

JUDGE:	DRUMMOND J
DATE:	22 JULY 1999
PLACE:	BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application to review a decision by the Refugee Tribunal, given on 10 February 1999 rejecting the claim to refugee status by the applicant.  The applicant came to Australia in April 1997 on what she acknowledged herself was a false passport.  She applied for a protection visa soon after in June 1997.

2. The Tribunal, in what seems to me to be a full and careful review of the evidence, came to the conclusion of fact that the applicant had no real basis for fearing harm at the hands of any of the Sri Lankan authorities;  that the matter of concern to her was that she was the victim of what appears to be protracted violence at the hands of her husband.

3. The evidence indicates that she left her husband quite some time before she came to Australia from Sri Lanka.  She left him in 1995, and for approximately 16 months lived apart from him without having contact with him in Sri Lanka before, as I say, departing for Australia.

4. In reading the reasons for decision of the Tribunal, I can see no reviewable error.

5. The applicant has commenced these proceedings by application for review filed on 17 March 1999.  The application merely recites all the available provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) upon which a decision of the Tribunal is, in theory, capable of being reviewed. It provides no particulars to identify any basis upon which there might be an argument available for indicating reviewable error on the part of the Tribunal.

6. The applicant appeared in person today against a background of this matter coming before me on 9 April 1999 for directions.  On that occasion the applicant was legally represented, and her representative consented to directions requiring the filing of, among other things, an outline of argument on her behalf; directions given to ensure that the case would be ready for hearing today.

7. Nothing has been done since April by the applicant.  Instead, she appeared unrepresented today and, from the comments made by her, it is clear to me that what she really desires is to put off the determination of her application as long as possible.  Among the matters which she raised was a request that I transfer the hearing of the case to Canberra because, she claimed, there are lawyers in Canberra who are capable of understanding her language and prepared to present her case.

8. I regret that I can give little weight to such a request against the background of this litigation that I have already mentioned, and particularly in view of the complete absence of anything to confirm what the applicant says about the prospects of there being assistance available to her if only the case could be transferred at this late stage to Canberra.

9. I therefore dismiss the application.  Since the Minister is the successful applicant and insists on asking for costs, there is nothing I can do but apply the ordinary rule and order the applicant to pay the costs of and incidental to the application.

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

Associate:
Dated:             22 July 1999

Applicant appeared in person.
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr P Bickford
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	22 July 1999
Date of Judgment:	22 July 1999