Gowfkir v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 988

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Gowfkir v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 988 Migration Act 1958 (Cth) Abdulaziz Gowfkir v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs S 53 OF 2001 von DOUSSA J 31 JULY 2001 ADELAIDE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY S 53 OF 2001

BETWEEN: ABDULAZIZ GOWFKIR

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: von DOUSSA J

DATE OF ORDER: 31 JULY 2001

WHERE MADE: ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. Application for an order for review dismissed. 2. Applicant to 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

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY S 53 OF 2001

BETWEEN: ABDULAZIZ GOWFKIR

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: von DOUSSA J

DATE: 31 JULY 2001

PLACE: ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant is a citizen of Morocco born on 15 June 1980. He seeks judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) given on 11 April 2001. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the respondent not to grant a protection visa to the applicant. The applicant arrived without authority on a vessel in Australia on 4 April 2000. He was first interviewed by officers of the respondent at Woomera on 8 April 2000. On 9 October 2000 he lodged an application for a protection visa on the basis that he was a refugee to whom Australia owed protection obligations. That application was supported by a signed statement dated 9 October 2000. On 31 October 2000 a delegate of the respondent refused a grant of a protection visa. 2 The application for review and supporting affidavits have been drawn without the benefit of legal advice, and without any understanding of the restrictions placed by s 476(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) on the powers of this court. Under that section, this court can only set aside a decision of the Tribunal where legal error of the kinds specified has occurred. The court has no power to review the merits of a case. The court is not empowered to set aside findings of fact unless an error of law of the prescribed kind is demonstrated. 3 In the present case the grounds upon which the applicant seeks review do not identify any legal error which would attract one of the grounds under s 476(1) of the Act. The two grounds identified by the applicant are first that: "I don't believe that my solicitor worked hard enough on my behalf, as I was expecting him to do something during the RRT hearing, namely by speaking which he never did."