SCAQ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 760

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SCAQ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs

[2002] FCA 760

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Durairajasingham (2000) 168 ALR 407 SCAQ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS S 65 0F 2002 O'LOUGHLIN J 17 JUNE 2002 ADELAIDE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY S 65 OF 2002

BETWEEN: SCAQ

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: O'LOUGHLIN J

DATE OF ORDER: 17 JUNE 2002

WHERE MADE: ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The Application be dismissed. 2. The Applicant pay the Respondent's costs which costs are 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

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY S 65 OF 2002

BETWEEN: SCAQ

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: O'LOUGHLIN J

DATE: 17 JUNE 2002

PLACE: ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant, a citizen of Iraq, arrived in Australia on 20 August 2001 without documentation. On 10 September 2001, he lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs ("the Department") pursuant to the provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"). His application was unsuccessful and he sought a review of that decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). Again he was unsuccessful. On 1 March 2002 he lodge an application in this Court to review the decision of the Tribunal. 2 His application told little of the purported errors of the Tribunal. It claimed that the Tribunal had: "(a) exceeded jurisdiction in making the decision to affirm the second respondent's decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa; and (b) erred in law in arriving at the decision to affirm the second respondent's decision not to grant the application a protection visa." 3 No particulars of the alleged excess of jurisdiction and no particulars of the alleged error in law were then supplied nor have any been supplied subsequently. The application for review was typed and was in a form that is becoming quite common in this registry. It had obviously been prepared by some well meaning person with legal experience. However, I venture to suggest, having regard to the facts of this case, that the well meaning intentions of this unknown person have been misplaced. By assisting the applicant in the preparation of his application, a false hope has been enlivened in the applicant – only to be dashed many months later when his application is dismissed by the Court. It would be much kinder to the applicant (and to others like him) if volunteer legal advisers used their time and their skills to explain why such an application as this would be doomed to failure.