Serpanchy v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 289

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Serpanchy v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 289

IMMIGRATION – protection visa – application for review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal – whether decision of Tribunal involved a reviewable error – no question of principle

Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Act 2001

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf and Israelian (2001) 180 ALR 1, referred to EVERARD ANTHONY SERPANCHY v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS V732 OF 2001 MARSHALL J MELBOURNE 18 MARCH 2002

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V732 OF 2001

BETWEEN: EVERARD ANTHONY SERPANCHY

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: MARSHALL J

DATE OF ORDER: 18 MARCH 2001

WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs, including reserved costs, to be taxed in default of agreement. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V732 OF 2001

BETWEEN: EVERARD ANTHONY SERPANCHY

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: MARSHALL J

DATE: 18 MARCH 2001

PLACE: MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the RRT"). 2 On 22 June 2001, the applicant was advised of the RRT's decision dated 31 May 2001 in which the RRT affirmed the decision of a delegate of the respondent not to grant protection visas to the applicant and members of his family. 3 The applicant, his wife and their three children entered Australia on 4 April 1997. They are citizens of Sri Lanka of Burgher ethnicity who are Roman Catholics. On 9 May 1997, the applicant and his wife lodged applications for protection visas with the respondent's department. On 23 October 1997, a delegate of the respondent refused the applications. On 29 October 1997, the applicant and his wife applied to the RRT for a review of that decision. 4 It was not until 24 July 2000 that the RRT advised the applicant that it had reviewed the matter "on the papers" and was unable to make a favourable decision by reference to that information. The RRT invited the applicant to attend a hearing before it. The RRT hearing took place on 11 October 2000.