Applicant G v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 1035

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant G v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 1035 APPLICANT G v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS N 179 of 1999 HILL J 15 JUNE 1999 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 179 OF 1999

BETWEEN: APPLICANT G

Applicant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND

MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Respondent

JUDGE: HILL J

DATE OF ORDER: 15 JUNE 1999

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The name of the applicant in the present proceedings be kept confidential, not to be disclosed to any person other than the parties to the proceedings, the legal advisers or those present in Court today. 2. The proceedings henceforth be denominated as Applicant G against the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs ("the Minister"). 3. Give leave to the applicant to amend the application for an Order of Review in the form which I have initialled and dated and which will be placed with the papers. 4. The applicant be dismissed. 5. The applicant pay the respondent's 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 N 179 OF 1999

BETWEEN: APPLICANT G

Applicant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND

MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Respondent

JUDGE: HILL J

DATE: 15 JUNE 1999

PLACE: SYDNEY

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant is a citizen of Algeria. He applied for a protection visa which was refused by a delegate of the respondent Minister and, in consequence, applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") to review the delegate's decision. The Tribunal refused the application for review and affirmed the decision of the delegate. It did so for two reasons. First, it found that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution as those words are used in the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees ("the Convention"). Having so found the Tribunal then said that, even if it had reached an incorrect result, it was satisfied that the applicant could access effective protection in a third country, Syria. 2 The appeal to this Court is an application in the original jurisdiction of the Court for judicial review, albeit on limited grounds, of the decision of the Tribunal. The applicant seeks to challenge both aspects of the Tribunal's reasons. 3 In support of the interesting argument that is put in respect of the second matter, the applicant's counsel sought to tender material that, in part, was not before the Tribunal. That tender was objected to by counsel for the respondent Minister. I think there is some difficulty in the tender of the material being accepted but, having regard to the view that I propose to take on the second matter, the material sought to be tendered becomes irrelevant. However, in the event that the matter were to proceed to an appeal, I would mark the material for identification MFI1. 4 The arguments on the second issue centred around the question whether the applicant would be afforded effective protection in Syria and accordingly become a person to whom Australia did not have protection obligations under the Convention.