Applicant VJAG of 2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 55

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant VJAG of 2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 55 APPLICANT VJAG OF 2003 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS V 897 of 2003 WHITLAM, MARSHALL and FINKELSTEIN JJ MELBOURNE 26 FEBRUARY 2004

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 897 of 2003

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: APPLICANT VJAG OF 2003

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND

MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGES: WHITLAM, MARSHALL and FINKELSTEIN JJ

DATE OF ORDER: 26 FEBRUARY 2004

WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the respondent's taxed 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

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 897 of 2003

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: APPLICANT VJAG OF 2003

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND

MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGES: WHITLAM, MARSHALL and FINKELSTEIN JJ

DATE: 26 FEBRUARY 2004

PLACE: MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT WHITLAM J: 1 This is an appeal from a judgment of a judge of the Court, dismissing with costs an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') made on 29 August 2002. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent not to grant the appellant a protection visa. 2 The proceeding in the Court below was instituted with the assistance of a solicitor. However, at the hearing the appellant was unrepresented. The grounds of review in the original application were not pursued in the Court below, and the appellant mounted a challenge to the Tribunal's decision on a different basis. The case he advanced was comprehensively dealt with by the primary judge in his reasons for judgment. 3 The grounds of appeal in the notice of appeal argued before the Full Court today raise substantially the same points that were dealt with by the primary judge. On the hearing of his appeal the appellant once more has the misfortune to be acting for himself. However, a comprehensive set of submissions has been prepared by a barrister appointed pursuant to a referral under O 80 of the Federal Court Rules. In addition, the Court has been greatly assisted in its attention to this appeal, by the very helpful and comprehensive submissions in writing prepared by counsel for the respondent. It is apparent, from a reading of those submissions, that the primary judge dealt with every matter that was raised in the Court below or could have been raised in relation to the grounds in the appellant's notice of appeal. The appeal is utterly hopeless and, in my view, should be dismissed with costs. I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Whitlam.