WAAS v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2002] FCA 28

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WAAS v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 28

MIGRATION - judicial review - Refugee Review Tribunal - no reviewable error disclosed - application dismissed - no question of principle

WAAS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
W479 OF 2001

FRENCH J
17 JANUARY 2002
PERTH

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	W479 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	WAAS APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	FRENCH J
DATE OF ORDER:	17 JANUARY 2002
WHERE MADE:	PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application be dismissed.

2.        The applicant pay the respondent's costs of 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
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	W479 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	WAAS APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	FRENCH J
DATE:	17 JANUARY 2002
PLACE:	PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant is a national of Syria.  He arrived in Australia without lawful authority by boat on 17 December 2000.  He lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs on 27 March 2001.  That application was refused by a delegate of the Minister on 11 May 2001.  He applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") for a review of that decision on 15 May 2001.  On 28 September 2001, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant a protection visa.  On 9 October 2001, he applied to this Court for an order of review of the Tribunal's decision.

2. With effect from 2 October 2001, the law regulating the review of Tribunal decisions has been changed.  It is now the case that such decisions are to be treated as final and conclusive.  As I explained to the applicant before he began his submissions there are very exceptional circumstances in which the Court may, nevertheless, set aside a decision of the Tribunal.  None of those circumstances is apparent in this case, either from anything that the applicant has said or from my reading of the reasons of the Tribunal.

3. The applicant's claims were ultimately disbelieved by the Tribunal, they being based upon his alleged family association with the Muslim Brotherhood.  Initially he had complained of laws which prevented him from operating as a currency exchange dealer.  It is not necessary for present purposes to go through the detail of the Tribunal's findings and its comprehensive review of the evidence.  It is sufficient to say that the Tribunal did not accept the applicant's contentions and its decision turned on questions of fact.  It does not appear to have been in error in the law it applied or the procedures it adopted.

4. In the circumstances the application will be dismissed and the applicant will pay the respondent's costs of the application.

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

Associate:

Dated:             

WAAS appeared on his own behalf.
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr PR MacLiver
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	17 January 2002
Date of Judgment:	17 January 2002