CR v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 255

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CR v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 255 CR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS N 1112 OF 1999 LEHANE J 10 MARCH 2000 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 1112 OF 1999

BETWEEN: CR

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: LEHANE J

DATE OF ORDER: 10 MARCH 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 N 1112 OF 1999

BETWEEN: CR

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: LEHANE J

DATE: 10 MARCH 2000

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 In this application for relief under Pt 8 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)the applicant claims the following relief: "1. An order to set aside the decision of the Respondent and the Refugee Review Tribunal. This matter be remitted and be reconsidered according with law. 2. An order to be represented by a Solicitor under Order 80 (FCA), according to article 16 of the UN Conventions for Refugees, or 3. An order of review of written documents 'without oral hearing' by the Federal Court of Australia." 2 The decision referred to in the first claim for relief is one which the Refugee Review Tribunal made on 2 September 1999 by which the Tribunal affirmed a decision not to grant protection visas to the applicant and his wife (the present application is by the applicant above, but I do not think anything turns on that). I shall turn to the Tribunal's decision shortly. The second and third claims for relief are made in the alternative. The second claim was not raised at the directions hearing on 5 November 1999 (and I did not advert to it). In any event, however, and assuming, without deciding, that it may in some circumstances be appropriate for the Court to entertain claims of that kind, this was not in my view an appropriate case for a reference under O 80 r 4(1) of the Federal Court Rules. Solicitors acted for the applicants before the Tribunal, though not on the application for judicial review. As will appear, the case is one which, in my view, does not, in the context of the relief which the Court has power to grant under Pt 8 of the Migration Act, raise any question of particular complexity or difficulty. As for the third claim for relief, directions of the usual kind were made including an order setting the matter down for hearing, and the application proceeded to a hearing in the ordinary way. The applicant filed an affidavit and written submissions. He appeared in person and made additional submissions orally, through an interpreter. He also tendered some further documents, which I received subject to relevance. In preparing his written submissions the applicant had assistance, though not the assistance of a lawyer or migration agent; the submissions demonstrate some familiarity with the Refugees Convention (the 1951 Convention relating to Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees) and with some of the relevant authorities and the applicable principles.