Weigang, Michael v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[1997] FCA 707

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Migration Act 1958, s 476

MICHAEL WEIGANG v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

NG 228 of 1997

JUDGE:	BEAUMONT J
PLACE:	SYDNEY
DATED:	17 JULY 1997

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
)
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	)  NG 228 of 1997
)
GENERAL DIVISION	)

BETWEEN:	MICHAEL WEIGANG Applicant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent

JUDGE:	BEAUMONT J
PLACE:	SYDNEY
DATED:	17 JULY 1997

MINUTES OF ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application be dismissed, with costs.

1. The operation of order 1 be suspended up to and including 18 August 1997.

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	)   NG 228 of 1997
)
GENERAL DIVISION	)

BETWEEN:	MICHAEL WEIGANG Applicant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent

JUDGE:	BEAUMONT J
PLACE:	SYDNEY
DATED:	17 JULY 1997

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Before the Court is an application seeking an order of judicial review of a decision of the Immigration Review Tribunal. The applicant has at all times appeared for himself, although he has no legal qualifications and this has given rise to considerable difficulty in the preparation and presentation of his case. The background to the matter and the issues that appear to arise in the application are sufficiently indicated in the respondent's written outline of submissions, dated 15 July 1997, which I have marked “1” for identification. I need not re-state that material. It should be noted that, after those submissions were prepared, documents were tendered before me today by the applicant, but for present purposes the respondent’s outline of submissions still adequately states the background and issues for determination. The jurisdiction of the Court is, of course, restricted by the provisions of s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (“the Act”). The Court is also guided by the observations of the High Court of Australia in the approach to be taken by this Court in applications for judicial review of administrative action of the kind before me today.(See Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo, 13 June 1997, unreported). 

As I indicated to the applicant in the course of his submissions, if the present challenge is, in truth, an attempt to re-agitate the facts, this Court simply has no jurisdiction. Having considered all of the material before the Court, I have come to the conclusion that there is no other view open. In other words, I can perceive no error of law in the approach taken by the Tribunal, nor can I perceive the availability to the applicant of any of the grounds of review specified in s 476(1) of the Act.

In those circumstances there is no jurisdiction or power in this Court to intervene.  It must follow that the application should be dismissed.  However, since the applicant has appeared in person and has an obvious need for legal advice, I will suspend the operation of my order for a short period so that the applicant may seek legal advice on the possibility of appealing from my decision.

Therefore the orders of the Court are as follows:

1. Application dismissed with costs.

1. Suspend the operation of order 1 up to and including 18 August 1997.

I certify that this and the preceding one (1) page are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Beaumont

Associate:

Dated:            17 July 1997

Applicant:	The applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	A Backman
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	17 July 1997
Date of Judgment:	17 July 1997