NADP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 569

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NADP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 569 MIGRATION – protection visas – Refugee Review Tribunal ("RRT") rejected application because of changes brought about by the 2001 elections in Bangladesh – whether RRT bound to afford applicant opportunity to comment on election results where applicant promised to return to Bangladesh if the Awami League lost power – whether breach of rules of procedural fairness.

Constitution, s 75(v) Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 39B(1) Migration Act 1958 (Cth) , s 474 Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Re; Ex parte Miah (2001) 179 ALR 238, distinguished. Commissioner for Australian Capital Territory Revenue v Alphaone Pty Ltd (1994) 49 FCR 576, cited. NAAX v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 263, followed. NADP v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS N 1679 of 2001 SACKVILLE J SYDNEY 7 MAY 2002

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 1679 OF 2001

BETWEEN: NADP

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: SACKVILLE J

DATE OF ORDER: 7 MAY 2002

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 1679 OF 2002

BETWEEN: NADP

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: SACKVILLE J

DATE: 7 MAY 2002

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh. He arrived in Australia on 22 August 1997 and one month later lodged an application for a protection visa. On 1 December 1997 a delegate of the respondent ("the Minister") refused the application. On 7 November 2001, some four years later, the RRT affirmed the delegate's decision. The RRT's reasons give no explanation for the delay beyond noting that the applicant gave oral evidence on 14 December 1999 and that further submissions were received from the applicant and his adviser on 21 May 2001 in response to country information sent to them in April 2001. It may be that part of the delay was because the RRT, having regard to the applicant's written submissions, was awaiting the outcome of the elections in Bangladesh which took place in early October 2001. 2 The applicant now seeks review of the RRT's decision. The application filed in this Court on 24 December 2001 does not identify the source of the Court's jurisdiction, but the Minister has been content to regard the application as having invoked s 39B(1) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) ("Judiciary Act"), pursuant to which the Court has jurisdiction with respect to any matter in which a writ of mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth.