NATK v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 18

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NATK v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 18 NATK v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS N1600 of 2003 BEAUMONT, LINDGREN AND TAMBERLIN JJ 9 FEBRUARY 2004 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N1600 OF 2003

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: NATK

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGES: BEAUMONT, LINDGREN AND TAMBERLIN JJ

DATE OF ORDER: 9 FEBRUARY 2004

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 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 N1600 OF 2003

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: NATK

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGES: BEAUMONT, LINDGREN AND TAMBERLIN JJ

DATE: 9 FEBRUARY 2004

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

the court: 1 The appellant is a citizen of Bangladesh who arrived in Australia on 16 October 2001. On 8 November 2001, he lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs ("the Department") under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"). On 20 February 2002, a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs ("the delegate") refused to grant a protection visa, and on 18 March 2002, the appellant applied for review of that decision to the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the RRT"). The RRT, on 22 May 2002, affirmed the decision not to grant a protection visa, whereupon an application for review was made to this Court. 2 The primary judge dismissed the application for review, after pointing out that the grounds were devoid of specificity and were, in effect, assertions of an error of law amounting to jurisdictional error in finding that the appellant did not have a genuine fear of persecution, and that there had been an incorrect application of law. In the absence of any particularisation of the grounds, his Honour was not persuaded that there was any error on the part of the RRT. Therefore, since the decision of the RRT was a privative clause decision under s 474(1) of the Act, his Honour held that judicial review should be refused. 3 The Notice of Appeal filed by the appellant on 27 October 2003 states that the ground of appeal is that the Federal Court erred in not taking into consideration the appellant's well-founded fear of the persecution that he would face on return to Bangladesh due to his political beliefs. It is also said that the decision had not afforded the appellant procedural fairness. No particulars were given.