Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Haris v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 86 MOHAMED ISMAIL MOHAMED HARIS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS N1212 of 1999 WILCOX J SYDNEY 4 FEBRUARY 2000
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N1212 of 1999
BETWEEN: MOHAMED ISMAIL MOHAMED HARIS
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent
JUDGE: WILCOX J
DATE OF ORDER: 4 FEBRUARY 2000
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed. 2. 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 N1212 of 1999
BETWEEN: MOHAMED ISMAIL MOHAMED HARIS
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent
JUDGE: WILCOX J
DATE: 4 FEBRUARY 2000
PLACE: SYDNEY
EXTEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 WILCOX J: An application has been made for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal. The applicant, Mr Haris, appears in person, assisted by an interpreter. The submission he has put to the Court is that the decision of the Tribunal is wrong because there will be a danger to his life if he returns to Sri Lanka. He mentioned his opinion that the Sri Lankan Government could not be trusted. I fully understand that Mr Haris is concerned about the result of returning to Sri Lanka and genuinely wishes to remain in Australia. 2 However, the power of the Court is extremely limited. The Migration Act 1958 permits the Court to interfere with a decision of the Tribunal only in a case that is covered by s476 of the Act. Expressed broadly, the matters referred to in s476 relate to errors of law or of procedure. In particular, the Court is not given power to review findings of fact made by the Tribunal. The matters raised by Mr Haris today in Court are entirely questions of fact. The Court has no jurisdiction to re-examine those questions. 3 No question falling within s476 has been raised by Mr Haris. Nor have I been able to discern such a question for myself. I read the decision of the Tribunal before coming into court today. Expecting that Mr Haris would not be legally represented, I considered whether there was any error that attracted the jurisdiction of the Court. I could not see any such error. 4 While I understand and sympathise with Mr Haris' wish to stay in Australia, it is beyond my power to make an order that would assist him in achieving that objective. I have no alternative other than to dismiss the application. I will do that. 5 [An application for costs was made.] 6 The usual order is that the unsuccessful party must pay the costs of the successful party. There is no reason to depart from that practice in this case. Accordingly, the orders I make are that the application be dismissed and the applicant pay the respondent's costs. I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Wilcox.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate