SCAO v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 841

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SCAO v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 841

SCAO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS S 63 OF 2002 O'LOUGHLIN 3 JULY 2002 ADELAIDE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY S 63 OF 2002

BETWEEN: SCAO

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: O'LOUGHLIN J

DATE OF ORDER: 3 JULY 2002

WHERE MADE: ADELAIDE

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

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY S 63 OF 2002

BETWEEN: SCAO

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: O'LOUGHLIN J

DATE: 3 JULY 2002

PLACE: ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant, a citizen of Iran, arrived in Australia on 25 August 2001. He was interviewed by an officer of the Department for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs ("the Department") at Woomera on 6 September 2001 ("the initial interview"). In that interview he said that he left Iran for religious reasons; he had converted to Christianity. On 15 November 2001, he lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department pursuant to the provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"). That application was unsuccessful as was a subsequent application for a review by the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). The applicant now seeks the intervention of this Court. He lodged his application on 1 March 2002 and, because of the introduction of the amending legislation with effect as from 2 October 2001, his application will be subjected, (inter alia) to the privative clause provisions that are now contained in s 474 of the Act. 2 His application was in type written form; it was a pro-forma document which had obviously been prepared by a person with legal knowledge. However, it 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."