FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NADX v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 175 NADX v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS N 436 of 2003 BLACK CJ, HEEREY AND FINN JJ SYDNEY 13 AUGUST 2003 IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N436 OF 2003 BETWEEN: NADX APPLICANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGNEOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT JUDGES: BLACK CJ, HEEREY AND FINN JJ DATE OF ORDER: 13 AUGUST 2003 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal. 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 N436 OF 2003 BETWEEN: NADX APPLICANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGNEOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT JUDGES: BLACK CJ, HEEREY AND FINN JJ DATE: 13 AUGUST 2003 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT THE COURT: 1 This is an appeal from a decision of Madgwick J, rejecting the appellant's application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") affirming a decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister to refuse to grant a protection visa to the appellant. The relevant facts and the grounds on which the appellant sought review of the Tribunal's decision are set out in the reasons of the trial judge: see NADX v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] FCA 289. (Those reasons may be found on the Federal Court's website: www.fedcourt.gov.au.) 2 The notice of appeal filed by the appellant lists two grounds of appeal: "(1) RRT decision was affected by 'error of law' and [sic] procedural fairness." "(2) There was no evidence to justify in making such decision." 3 The appellant was directed to file written submissions, in support of the appeal, 14 days prior to the hearing. He has not done so. 4 The application for an order of review filed by the appellant raised similar grounds. In substance, the appellant sought merits review of the Tribunal's decision. 5 Section 476 of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) provides that an applicant may apply for judicial review on limited grounds of a legal nature, not factual error. As a general proposition, the Court does not have jurisdiction to review on factual grounds. 6 We have read the reasons of the learned primary judge. His Honour carefully considered the arguments that were said to give rise to questions of law. His Honour concluded that they did not make out any legal error and that there was no basis for him to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of his Honour's conclusions. 7 The appeal must be dismissed with costs. The appellant must pay the respondent's costs of the appeal. I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Chief Justice Black, their Honours Justice Heerey and Justice Finn. Associate: Dated: 13 August 2003 Counsel for the Appellant: The appellant appeared in person Counsel for the Respondent: Mr S Lloyd Solicitor for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore Date of Hearing: 13 August 2003 Date of Judgment: 13 August 2003