Ameer v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 1100

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Ameer v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 1100

MOHAMED RINAS MOHAMED AMEER v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS N 500 OF 1999

THE HON JUSTICE MARCUS EINFELD AO SYDNEY 2 AUGUST 1999

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 500 OF 1999

BETWEEN: MOHAMED RINAS MOHAMED AMEER

Applicant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Respondent

JUDGE: THE HON JUSTICE MARCUS EINFELD AO

DATE: 2 AUGUST 1999

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1 On 11 August 1998 Justice Wilcox dismissed an application to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal which was given on 28 April 1998. The applicant is a Sri Lankan Tamil who is also a Muslim. He gave his evidence to the Tribunal in Tamil whilst being accompanied by a solicitor who spoke both English and Tamil. The applicant seeks leave to appeal out of time from the decision of Justice Wilcox.

2 The reasons he gives for being late with filing his appeal were that he was in detention at Villawood, that he had no money, and that he had no legal assistance. As a consequence he was unable to commence the appeal. He apparently did have access to members of the Sri Lankan Tamil community who, it appears, assisted him to lodge the present application for an extension of time to file the appeal. The appeal was to have been filed by early September 1998. The application for an extension of time is dated 31 May 1999. He is therefore nearly nine months out of time.

3 It is difficult to know why he was not deported in that period. In any case he has still not filed anything even slightly resembling a proper notice of appeal, although there is in the file a draft affidavit of 18 June in an annexure to which he sets out the matters which he would wish to raise in any appeal. In short, the assertions that he makes are that the interpreter was incompetent and confused such that many of his answers to the Tribunal were distorted and, as a consequence, misunderstood by the Tribunal. He also alleges that the Tribunal disbelieved him in respect of a number of his major allegations whereas if the evidence had been properly translated and properly understood, it would not have done so.