NAEQ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 822

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NAEQ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 822 NAEQ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS N216 OF 2002 WILCOX J 31 MAY 2002 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N216 OF 2002

BETWEEN: NAEQ

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: WILCOX J

DATE OF ORDER: 31 MAY 2002

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the costs of the respondent. 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 N216 OF 2002

BETWEEN: NAEQ

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: WILCOX J

DATE: 31 MAY 2002

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT WILCOX J: 1 This is an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal refusing applications for protection visas made by the applicant on behalf of himself, his wife and his son. The applicant is not represented today although he has had the benefit of legal advice since the application to this Court was filed. The applicant has addressed the Court through an interpreter to whom I express the Court's thanks for her assistance. 2 I have pointed out to the applicant the limits on the Court's jurisdiction. He tells me he understands this and he indicates that there is nothing that he can say that would bring his case within the limited areas in which the Court can review a decision of the Tribunal. I think he is correct in this. I have myself read the Tribunal's decision. I say nothing about the findings of fact, which I understand the applicant regards as incorrect or inadequate in some respects. The facts are entirely a matter for the Tribunal to determine, under the legislation as it stands. 3 However, I think it is clear that there is no error in the Tribunal's reasoning that would attract the jurisdiction of this Court. I would say that even if the relevant rules were those that applied before the legislative amendments that took effect on 2 October 2001. In fact the amendments apply, having regard to the date of the Tribunal's decision. It is not necessary, in this case, to go into the question of the extent of the Court's powers under that law. It is clear, that on any basis, there is no foundation for the Court to intervene in the case. In the circumstances I have no option but to dismiss the application. I propose to do that. 4 The order I make is the application be dismissed with costs.