FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA WAEL of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 175 APPELLANT WAEL of 2002 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS W 35 of 2002 WHITLAM, NORTH and STONE JJ 30 MAY 2002 PERTH IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY W 35 of 2002 ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: APPELLANT WAEL of 2002 APPELLANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT JUDGES: WHITLAM, NORTH and STONE JJ DATE OF ORDER: 30 MAY 2002 WHERE MADE: PERTH THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The appellant is to pay the respondent's costs. 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 W 35 of 2002 BETWEEN: APPELLANT WAEL of 2002 APPELLANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT JUDGES: WHITLAM, NORTH and STONE JJ DATE: 30 MAY 2002 PLACE: PERTH REASONS FOR JUDGMENT THE COURT: 1 This is an appeal from a judgment of French J dismissing with costs an application filed on 7 November 2001 to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). Such a decision is a "privative clause decision" within the meaning of s 474(2) of the Migration Act 1958 ("the Act") and, by virtue of s 474(1) of the Act, must not be reviewed in any court. The application did not invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903. 2 The notice of appeal did not state any proper grounds of appeal. This was hardly surprising as the appellant had the misfortune not to be represented by a lawyer. (He was also unrepresented in the Court below.) The appellant told us of his distress about not being believed by the Tribunal. We have been assisted by the careful written submissions of counsel for the respondent on the appeal. As the primary judge pointed out, the Tribunal's decision turned entirely upon its view of the appellant's credibility. That is, of course, a matter for the Tribunal. 3 We agree with the orders made by French J for the reasons he gave. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed with costs. I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Court. Associate: Dated: 11 June 2002 The appellant appeared in person. Counsel for the respondent: L A Tsaknis Solicitor for the respondent: Australian Government Solicitor Date of hearing: 30 May 2002 Date of judgment: 30 May 2002