Singh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2000] FCA 706

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Singh v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 706

SURINDER SINGH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

VG 68 OF 1997

NORTH J
29 MAY 2000
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VG 68 OF 1997

BETWEEN:	SURINDER SINGH APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTRUAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	NORTH J
DATE OF ORDER:	29 MAY 2000
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application is dismissed.

2.The applicant is to 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
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VG 68 OF 1997

BETWEEN:	SURINDER SINGH APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTRUAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	NORTH J
DATE:	29 MAY 2000
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant, Mr Surinder Singh, applied to the Court for a review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) made on 20 January 1997 which affirmed the decision of the delegate of the respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, to refuse the applicant a protection visa.

2. The applicant is the cousin of Mr Manjit Singh (Manjit).  The facts upon which the applicant based his claim to a protection visa are, in essence, the same facts upon which Manjit relied also to claim a protection visa.  The respondent rejected the application of Manjit also on 20 January 1997, and Manjit sought a review by the Court of that decision. 

3. The application for review brought by Manjit was heard on the same day as the application by the applicant and the parties agreed that the arguments in one should be treated as arguments in the other. 

4. Those arguments are dealt with in the reasons for decision relating to Manjit delivered today.  The reasons also apply to the present application with the result that this application must also be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice .

Associate:

Dated:             29 May 2000

Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr P Gray
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Erskine Rodan & Associates
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr S McLeish
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	30 March 2000
Date of Judgment:	29 May 2000