Al Khafaf v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1432

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Al Khafaf v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1432 Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 476 Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Eshetu [1999] 197 CLR 611, followed Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Singh [2000] FCA 845, followed Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Thiyagarajah [1998] 80 FCR 543, followed TAHSEEN ABDUL AMIR AL KHAFAF v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS W 92 of 2000 R D NICHOLSON J 20 SEPTEMBER 2000 PERTH

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY W 92 of 2000

BETWEEN: TAHSEEN ABDUL AMIR AL KHAFAF

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: R D NICHOLSON J

DATE OF ORDER: 20 SEPTEMBER 2000

WHERE MADE: PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application for an order of review dated 6 June 2000 be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY W 92 of 2000

BETWEEN: TAHSEEN ABDUL AMIR AL KHAFAF

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: R D NICHOLSON J

DATE: 20 SEPTEMBER 2000

PLACE: PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application for an order for review under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("The Act"). The application seeks review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("The Tribunal") given on 17 May 2000. 2 The decision of the Tribunal was to affirm a decision of the delegate of the respondent not to grant to the applicant a protection visa. The applicant is a citizen of Iraq, who arrived in Australia on 12 October 1999. 3 The delegate's decision was made on 18 January 2000. The applicant appears unrepresented. He has the assistance of an interpreter. His application appears in a form common to those in immigration detention and prepared without any evident legal advice. Although the applicant has had legal advice, that was not in respect of the formulation of the application. 4 There are three grounds of review in the application. The first ground is: "the procedures that were required by the Act to be observed in connection with the making of the decision were not observed in that the Tribunal failed to act according to substantial justice and the merits of the case". That ground is said to be based on s 476(1)(a) and s 420(2)(b) of the Act. However, s 420 is not a section providing for a procedure of the kind contemplated by s 476(1)(a). The authority for this is found in Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Eshetu [1999] 197 CLR 611. The first ground therefore cannot assist the applicant. I will return to the other two grounds later. 5 At this point I will insert reference to the relevant provisions of the Act and of the Convention.