Applicant NAFH v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 868

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant NAFH v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 868 NAFH of 2002 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS N 285 OF 2002 SACKVILLE J SYDNEY 11 JULY 2002

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 285 OF 2002

BETWEEN: NAFH of 2002

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: SACKVILLE J

DATE OF ORDER: 11 JULY 2002

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay fifty per cent of 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 285 OF 2002

BETWEEN: NAFH of 2002

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: SACKVILLE J

DATE: 11 JULY 2002

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the "RRT") given on 12 March 2002. The RRT affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent (the "Minister"), made on 20 November 2000, not to grant the applicant a protection (class XA) visa. 2 It appears that the applicant was assisted by a migration agent before the RRT. He appeared unrepresented in this Court, and made his submissions with the assistance of an interpreter.

jurisdiction 3 The application filed in this Court is expressed to be made pursuant to s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) ("Judiciary Act"). Section 39B(1) of the Judiciary Act confers jurisdiction on the Federal Court "With respect to any matter in which a writ of mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer or officers of the Commonwealth". 4 The application was filed on 10 April 2002. It is therefore subject to the provisions of Part 8 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("Migration Act"), as amended by the Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Act 2001 (Cth), which came into force on 2 October 2001. The key provision in Part 8 is s 474, which is in the following terms: "(1) A privative clause decision: (a) is final and conclusive; and (b) must not be challenged, appealed against, reviewed, quashed or called in question in any court; and (c) is not subject to prohibition, mandamus, injunction, declaration or certiorari in any court on any account. (2) In this section: privative clause decision means a decision of an administrative character made, proposed to be made, or required to be made, as the case may be, under this Act or under a regulation or other instrument made under this Act (whether in the exercise of a discretion or not)…". 5 The application filed in this Court appears to have been compiled by someone other than the applicant. It refers in a discursive fashion to several decisions relating either to s 474(1) of the Migration Act or to privative clauses generally. The grounds of review upon which the applicant appears to rely are that * the RRT ignored relevant evidence; * the RRT's findings indicated that it was biased; and * the RRT had failed to investigate the applicant's claims.