Trpeski v MIMA

[2000] FCA 841

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Trpeski v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 841

VLADIMIR TRPESKI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND
MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

N 135 OF 2000

MANSFIELD J
6 JUNE 2000
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 135 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	VLADIMIR TRPESKI APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	MANSFIELD J
DATE OF ORDER:	6 JUNE 2000
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

2.        The applicant pay to the respondent costs of the application to be taxed.

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 135 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	VLADIMIR TRPESKI APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	MANSFIELD J
DATE:	6 JUNE 2000
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant is now twenty-eight.  He is a citizen of Macedonia.  He came to Australia in late 1998 with his wife who was pregnant to visit her family and members of his family.  They have a son, who was born in Melbourne in January 1999.  The applicant is a qualified electrotechnical engineer, and was employed in Macedonia as a senior staff member of a company between April 1994 and November 1998.  He worked carrying out machine maintenance.

2. Upon arrival in Australia, the applicant applied for a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”). It is a criterion for the grant of that visa that the Minister or his delegate, and on review the Tribunal, be satisfied that he is a person to whom Australia owes protection obligations under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol (using those terms as they are defined in the Act) (“the Convention”).

3. The application for the visa was rejected by a delegate of the respondent on 8 June 1999.  The applicant sought review of that decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”).  On 27 January 2000, the Tribunal made its decision on that application for review.  It affirmed the decision of the delegate of the respondent not to grant to the applicant a protection visa.

4. This is an application for review of that decision. It is not an application which involves a review of the decision of the Tribunal on the merits. The Court’s power upon the review is limited to reviewing the Tribunal’s decision on one or more of the grounds specified in s 476(1) of the Act.

5. A number of the claims made by the applicant were accepted by the Tribunal.  It found that he had been conscripted into the Yugoslav army, the JNA, in 1990 and was sent to serve in the war in Croatia.  Part of the area where he served was at a place where the conflict involved what became known as “ethnic cleansing”.  He witnessed some dreadful killings, including those of persons close to him.  The Tribunal accepted that the applicant was…