FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NADF v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 96 MIGRATION – appeal from judicial review of Refugee Review Tribunal – failure to demonstrate jurisdictional error NADF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 1569 upheld NADF v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs N10 of 2003 HEEREY, EMMETT & HELY JJ 20 May 2003 SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N10 OF 2003 BETWEEN: NADF APPELLANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT JUDGES: HEEREY, EMMETT AND HELY JJ DATE OF ORDER: 20 MAY 2003 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed with costs. 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 N10 OF 2003 BETWEEN: NADF APPELLANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT JUDGES: HEEREY, EMMETT AND HELY JJ DATE: 20 MAY 2003 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from a Judge of this Court who dismissed the appellant's application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal: NADF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 1569. 2 The appellant was not legally represented before his Honour, or before us. 3 The appellant's claims for refugee status, the course the proceedings took before the Tribunal and the Tribunal's reasons for affirming the decision not to grant the appellant a protection visa are fully set out in his Honour's judgment. 4 In brief, the appellant claimed that he had been an executive in a Chinese corporation and had been responsible for the investment of $US 1 million for a proposed joint venture with a Chilean firm. That firm had cancelled the project and had refused to refund the money. The appellant claimed that because of this he would be imprisoned if he were returned to China. 5 The appellant failed to provide further information sought by the Tribunal. 6 His Honour could not discern any basis for holding that the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error. Even if the appellant's claims were taken at face value they would not establish that he feared persecution on one of the five grounds set out in the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. 7 The appellant's notice of appeal asserted as grounds: (1) The procedures that were required by law to be observed in connection with the making of the decision and in connection with conduct for the purpose of making the decision were not observed. (2) The decision involves errors of law. 8 There was no failure to follow procedures. In particular the Tribunal complied with the requirements of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) in relation to seeking further information and affording the appellant a hearing. 9 No error of law is disclosed. 10 His Honour's decision was plainly correct. 11 The appeal will be dismissed with costs. I certify that the preceding eleven (11) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Court. Associate: Dated: 20 May 2003 Applicant appeared in person: Counsel for the Respondent: Mr J D Smith Solicitor for the Respondent: Blake Dawson Waldron Date of Hearing: 20 May 2003 Date of Judgment: 20 May 2003