Tuisolomone v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2000] FCA 1642

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Tuisolomone v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000]
FCA 1642

SECI TUISOLOMONE v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

N 1000 OF 2000

HELY J
10 NOVEMBER 2000
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 1000 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	SECI TUISOLOMONE APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	HELY J
DATE OF ORDER:	10 NOVEMBER 2000
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.   The application be dismissed with costs.

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 1000 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	SECI TUISOLOMONE APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	HELY J
DATE:	10 NOVEMBER 2000
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant is a citizen of Fiji.  He arrived in Australia on 17 October 1999 under a visitor’s visa which was valid for a period for three months.  On 10 July 2000, he was placed in detention as an unlawful non citizen and he remains in immigration detention.

2. The applicant lodged an application for a protection visa on 12 July 2000 which was refused by a delegate of the respondent on 7 August 2000.  That decision was affirmed by the Refugee Review Tribunal (“RRT”) on 31 August 2000.  The applicant claimed before RRT that he feared persecution in Fiji, arising from his failure to support the attempted coup by George Speight and his supporters in May 2000.  He identified his persecutors as being members of his family or clan rather than the wider pro-Speight population.

3. RRT rejected his claim principally for two reasons.  First, RRT concluded that the applicant gave false evidence in his account of relevant events, which left RRT with the impression that the claims about his family's enmity towards him were also false.  Second, on the applicant's own evidence, the persecutors were his family.  He accepted, and RRT found, that sufficient protection would be derived from the Fijian authorities.  Accordingly, the decision not to grant a protection visa was affirmed. 

4. The applicant lodged an application for an order of review of that decision. A review is only available on one of the grounds itemised in s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”). The ground of the application identified in the application filed is as follows:

   “As advised by my solicitor - Chantal Bostock of Craddock Murray and Neumann solicitors to allow me to stay in Australia, I have to apply on humanitarian ground.”

   Thus the application does not disclose any ground of review for which the Act makes provision.

5. An order was made by a Deputy Registrar on 4 October 2000 that the applicant should file and serve written submissions five working days prior to the hearing of his application, but that order was not complied with. The applicant appeared before me this morning unrepresented but with the assistance of an interpreter. Nothing which he put to me came anywhere near establishing any of the grounds of review for which s 476 makes provision.

6. During the course of his address the applicant referred to his involvement with the military in Fiji, his relationship with Major Ligairi, and a letter from his brother which appears at pages 85-86 of the Green Book, to the effect that the applicant is hated by the clan for his desertion when he was needed most.  The applicant also referred to recent events which have taken place in Fiji, which are not referred to in the evidence but which have a certain notoriety, which he said indicated the existence of a split within the Fijian military forces.

7. None of these topics bears upon the only issue with which I am concerned, namely whether there exists, in relation to RRT, one of the grounds of review referred to in s 476 of the Act. At its highest, what the applicant was asking me to do was to engage in a merits review of RRT’s decision, which is something the law does not permit.

8. In those circumstances, I have no choice other than to dismiss the application for an order of review, as none of the grounds of review referred to in s 476 has been established. I therefore order that the application should be dismissed.

9. I think the application should be dismissed with costs.  I accept that Mr Tuisolomone has no funds available to him from which a costs order could be satisfied, but that is not a sufficient reason for departing from the ordinary course.  I therefore order that the application be dismissed 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 Hely.

Associate:

Dated:             16 November 2000

The Applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr D Jordan
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	10 November 2000
Date of Judgment:	10 November 2000