Hamid V Minister for Immigration and Multcultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1620

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Hamid v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1620

MOHAMMAD ABDUL HAMID v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS N 845 OF 2000 STONE J 13 NOVEMBER 2000 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 845 OF 2000

BETWEEN: MOHAMMAD ABDUL HAMID

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND

MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: STONE J

DATE OF ORDER: 13 NOVEMBER 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 845 OF 2000

BETWEEN: MOHAMMAD ABDUL HAMID

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND

MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: STONE J

DATE: 13 NOVEMBER 2000

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction 1 The applicant, Mr Mohammad Abdul Hamid, applied to the respondent ("the Minister") for a protection visa (class AZ) to remain in Australia on about 21 December 1998. His application was refused by the Minister's delegate ("Delegate") on 16 February 1999. On 24 February 1999, Mr Hamid applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal ("Tribunal") for a review of the Delegate's decision. This refusal was upheld by the Tribunal in a decision dated 23 June 2000 and handed down on 13 July 2000. Mr Hamid now applies under s 476(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act") to this Court for review of the Tribunal's decision . 2 After considering a valid application for a visa and being satisfied that the criteria in s 65 of the Act have been met, the Minister must grant a visa to remain in Australia. One of the matters specified in s 65 is that the criteria for the visa specified by the Act or the regulations have been satisfied. 3 Section 36 of the Act provides that a criterion for the grant of a protection visa is that the applicant is a non-citizen in Australia to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28 July 1951, as "amended" by the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees done at New York on 31 January 1967 (compendiously, "the Convention"). As a party to the Convention, Australia has undertaken protection obligations to a person who is a "refugee" as defined in the Convention. 4 Article 1A(2) of the Convention provides that a refugee is any person who: "owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it." 5 Criteria to be satisfied by an applicant for a protection visa at the time of the decision on the application also include the criterion specified in cl 866.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) ("Regulations"), which is that the Minister is satisfied that the applicant is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Convention. 6 The Tribunal's decision is a "judicially reviewable decision" (s 475(1)(b) of the Act); the Applicant was entitled to apply to this Court for review of it on certain grounds (s 476); and the Court has the jurisdiction provided by Part 8 of the Act, but no other jurisdiction with respect to it (ss 485, 486).