FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Navunisinu v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 638 JOPE NAVUNISINU v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS N 1446 OF 1999 GYLES J SYDNEY 24 FEBRUARY 2000 IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 1446 OF 1999 BETWEEN: JOPE NAVUNISINU APPLICANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT JUDGE: GYLES J DATE OF ORDER: 24 FEBRUARY 2000 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1.The application is dismissed 2. The applicant to pay the respondent's costs IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 1446 OF 1999 BETWEEN: JOPE NAVUNISINU APPLICANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT JUDGE: GYLES J DATE: 24 FEBRUARY 2000 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 On 13 December 1999 the Migration Review Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Minister's delegate, refusing to grant to the applicant a Bridging Visa E (Class WE) subclass 050 (Bridging Visa (General)). On 15 December 1999, the applicant filed an application in this Court, and despite the matter having been before the Court on two previous occasions, when directions were given, no grounds have been included in the application. 2 The applicant has not, today, either sought to amend his application, or to produce any material in support of his case. The document marked Exhibit "A" is not directed to the substance of the application. The applicant points to no reviewable error in the decision of the Tribunal. The solicitor for the respondent submits that there is no reviewable error. It is not my task to comb through the Tribunal decision to find error. 3 I have read the Tribunal decision in order to familiarise myself with the case. All I can say is that no error presented itself to me. It seems to me that this application is totally without merit. It has involved much public expense and the waste of the time of the court on three separate occasions. The application is dismissed and I order that the applicant pay the costs to the respondent. I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Gyles. Associate: Dated: 15 May 2000 Counsel for the Applicant: Applicant in person Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor Date of Hearing: 24 February 2000 Date of Judgment: 24 February 2000