WAFO v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 241

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WAFO v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 241

MIGRATION – refugee – refusal of protection visa – appeal from single judge dismissing application for review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal – whether evidence or other material to justify decision – whether error of law WAFO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS W85 OF 2002 HEEREY, CARR AND MANSFIELD JJ 13 AUGUST 2002 PERTH

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY W 85 OF 2002

BETWEEN: WAFO

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: HEEREY, CARR AND MANSFIELD JJ

DATE OF ORDER: 13 AUGUST 2002

WHERE MADE: PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal including reserved 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 85 OF 2002

BETWEEN: WAFO

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: HEEREY, CARR AND MANSFIELD JJ

DATE: 13 AUGUST 2002

PLACE: PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The appellant appeals from a decision of a Judge of this Court which affirmed a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal which in turn affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister not to grant the appellant a protection visa. The appellant is a citizen of Egypt born in 1975. He entered Australia on 20 October 2000. The appellant is the friend of the appellant in the earlier case heard today, that is, WAFN of 2002. 2 The Tribunal rejected the application of the present appellant for essentially the same reasons as it did in the earlier case. Likewise, his Honour dismissed the application for review for the same reasons. The appellant in the present case, who was not represented, had filed a notice of appeal in the same terms as the appellant in the earlier case. The appellant addressed the Court and also referred to the incident when 22 people were killed as a result of a vendetta. For the same reasons as we have given in the earlier case, we are satisfied that no error has been shown in the decision of the primary Judge refusing to set aside a decision of the Tribunal. The appeal will be dismissed with costs. I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Court.