FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Masriadi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1424 MASRIADI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS N 260 OF 2000 TAMBERLIN J SYDNEY 4 OCTOBER 2000 IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 260 OF 2000 BETWEEN: MASRIADI APPLICANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT JUDGE: TAMBERLIN J DATE OF ORDER: 4 OCTOBER 2000 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application for review be dismissed with 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 260 OF 2000 BETWEEN: MASRIADI APPLICANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT JUDGE: TAMBERLIN J DATE: 4 OCTOBER 2000 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 In this matter I have heard the submissions of the applicant and they, in substance, amount to a repetition of assertions that he will be discriminated against on the ground of Chinese ethnicity if he is returned to Indonesia. This Court is confined by the provisions of the Migration Act 1958 to review the decisions of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the RRT") only on a limited number of grounds. In the present case no errors of law have been demonstrated in the approach taken by the RRT. This Court is not able to review questions of fact except in exceptional circumstances and no such circumstances have been shown in the present case. 2 For example, the applicant is concerned that the RRT erred in relation to the extent of the persecution in Indonesia and his concern was that the member of the RRT has underestimated this. This is classically a question of fact and degree and this Court cannot review the decision of the member on that basis. A number of other matters were raised but none of them, in my view, persuade me that there has been any reviewable error of law or fact in the decision of the RRT or in the approach which it has taken to consideration of the application. 3 I have had the benefit of considering the reasons for decision of the RRT and am unable to detect any error which would warrant judicial review in this matter and accordingly I propose to dismiss the application for review with costs. I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Tamberlin. Associate: Dated: 10 October 2000 Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant appeared in person Counsel for the Respondent: S Lloyd Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor Date of Hearing: 4 October 2000 Date of Judgment: 4 October 2000