VBAL v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VBAL v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2003] FMCA 120

MIGRATION – Review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal affirming a decision of a delegate of the Minister refusing to grant a protection visa – no reviewable error disclosed – application dismissed.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Migration Legislation Amendment (Procedural Fairness) Act 2002
Judiciary Act 1903

Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001

S157/2002 v Commonwealth of Australia (2003) HCA 2
NAAV v Minister for Immigration Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (2002) 193 ALR 449
Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163
R v Hickman; ex parte Fox and Clinton (1945) 70 CLR 598
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs v Yusef (2001) 180 ALR 1
Commissioner for ACT Revenue v Alphaone Pty Ltd (1994) 49 FCR 576
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs v Eshetu (1999) 197 CLR 611
Applicant A v The Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (1997) 190 CLR 225 at 264

Applicant: VBAL

Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

File No: MZ 808 of 2002

Delivered on: 7 April 2003

Delivered at: Melbourne

Hearing date: 29 January 2003

Judgment of: Hartnett FM

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Hannan

Solicitors for the Applicant: Fernandez and Johnstone

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Horan

Solicitors for the Respondent: Clayton Utz

ORDERS

The Court orders that:

1. The application is dismissed

2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs pursuant to the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 Part 21 Rule 21.10.

3. It is certified that pursuant to Rule 21.15 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 this matter reasonably required the attendance of counsel as advocate.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
MELBOURNE

MZ 808 of 2002

VBAL

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This matter proceeded before me on 29 January 2003.  On that day the Court ordered that each of the applicant and respondent have leave to file any further written submissions on which they sought to rely as a consequence of the anticipated High Court decision in S157 v Commonwealth of Australia (2003) HCA 2. Further submissions were filed by the respondent pursuant to that order (on 25 February 2003).

2. The applicant filed his application on the twenty-first day of February 2002. That application was accompanied by a statement of claim. The application was made pursuant to s.39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). The applicant named one Kim Boyd (in her capacity as an officer of the Refugee Review Tribunal) as the second named respondent. Weinberg J ordered on 25 March 2002 that the applicant file and serve an amended application for an order of review by

   
   

   24 April 2002:

   a)removing the Refugee Review Tribunal as a party to the proceedings; and

   b)with proper particulars of the grounds relied upon.

3. Other procedural orders were made on that date and the applicant filed an amended application on the fourth day of June 2002.  The Refugee Review Tribunal was removed as…