Federal Court dismisses refugee review appeal

OUTCOME: Dismissed

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

[APPELLANT] v [NAME] [2005] FCA 521

[APPELLANT] v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND [NAME] AND [NAME] AFFAIRS

N 426 OF 2005

[NAME]

27 APRIL 2005

[APPELLANT]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 426 OF 2005

BETWEEN: [APPELLANT]

APPLICANT

AND: [APPELLANT] FOR IMMIGRATION AND [NAME] AND [NAME] AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

[APPELLANT] OF ORDER: 27 APRIL 2005

[APPELLANT]

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application for leave to appeal be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs assessed in the sum of $800.00.

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 426 OF 2005

[APPELLANT]

APPLICANT

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: [NAME]: 27 APRIL 2005

PLACE: [APPELLANT] FOR JUDGMENT

[NAME]: 1 This is an application for leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment of Federal [NAME] given on 28 February 2005. [NAME] dismissed an application for judicial review of an adverse decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') on the basis that the initiating process filed by the applicant disclosed no reasonable cause of action. 2 Before this course was embarked upon, the applicant had been given an opportunity to file an amended application, which he did. Insofar as he complained of error on the part of the Tribunal, the errors alleged are entirely concerned with factual matters. As [NAME] pointed out: '… the amended application asserts jurisdictional error but the particulars given are merely a challenge to the merits of the [Tribunal] decision. No legal error going to the jurisdiction of the [Tribunal] is asserted. From my reading of the [Tribunal] decision made on 1 September 2003 there was no jurisdictional error. It would follow that the decision of the [Tribunal] is a privative clause decision and on that basis the amended application is bound to fail.' 3 Before me, the applicant, although not assisted by an interpreter, spoke excellent English and well understood what I was putting to him. He was unable to suggest any other complaint other than that the Tribunal had got the facts of his case wrong. That alone is not sufficient to indicate any jurisdictional error and I would refuse leave to appeal because it seems to me there is no reasonably arguable case that the learned Federal Magistrate fell into error.

Accordingly, the prospects of the appeal, if leave were given, are of insufficient moment to warrant leave being granted. 4 The application is dismissed and the applicant is to pay the costs of the respondent, assessed in the sum of $800. I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the [NAME] [NAME].

Associate: Dated: 5 May 2005

[NAME]: [APPELLANT] applicant appeared in person

[NAME]: Australian Government Solicitor

Date of Hearing: 27 April 2005

Date of Judgment: 27 April 2005