Tarik- Application by

This matter concerned an application by Tarik for leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Full Federal Court. The dispute arose from an application made by Tarik under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) for a protection visa. The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs had refused to grant the visa, and this decision was affirmed by the Refugee Review Tribunal. Tarik then sought judicial review of the Tribunal's decision in the Federal Court, which was dismissed. The Full Federal Court subsequently dismissed Tarik's appeal from that decision.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the Full Federal Court had erred in law in its interpretation and application of section 475(2) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). Specifically, the question was whether the Full Federal Court had correctly determined that the grounds of appeal raised by Tarik in his application for judicial review were not valid grounds for such review under the Act. This involved considering the scope of judicial review available for decisions made under the *Migration Act* and the circumstances in which a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal could be challenged.

Gleeson CJ and Gummow J, in their joint reasons, held that the Full Federal Court had correctly interpreted section 475(2) of the *Migration Act*. Their Honours explained that the section limits the grounds upon which judicial review can be sought to errors of law. They found that the arguments advanced by Tarik did not disclose an error of law on the part of the Refugee Review Tribunal, but rather amounted to a re-argument of the facts or a disagreement with the Tribunal's findings of fact. The Court affirmed the principle that judicial review is not an appeal on the merits of a decision, and that the Tribunal's findings of fact, if supported by evidence, are generally not amenable to challenge in judicial review proceedings.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.