NADN of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 572

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NADN of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 572 NADN OF 2002 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS N 1168 OF 2002 ALLSOP J 10 JUNE 2003 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 1168 of 2002

BETWEEN: NADN OF 2002

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: ALLSOP J

DATE OF ORDER: 10 JUNE 2003

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 1168 of 2002

BETWEEN: NADN OF 2002

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: ALLSOP J

DATE: 10 JUNE 2003

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1 The applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the "Tribunal") made on 6 September 2002, affirming the decision of a delegate of the respondent not to grant a protection visa to the applicant. 2 The applicant named on the application was one of the applicants before the Tribunal. The other applicant before the Tribunal was her husband. He is not named as an applicant in these proceedings; though some of the submissions on behalf of the applicant refer to "and others" and speak in the plural. I will deal with the matter as if both wife and husband were applicants (referring to them as the female applicant and male applicant only because of the strictures of s 91X of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act), the constitutional validity of which I assume in the absence of argument). 3 I should say by way of introduction that though the applicants lacked legal representation in Court, the documents filed by them (generally ascribed to the female applicant) reflected the participation of some person or persons with legal knowledge or training. Plainly from what they said in Court the applicants had no grasp of the legal issues. Some of the submissions made, especially those concerning Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal (2002) 76 ALJR 966, lacked an appropriate evidentiary foundation. 4 Though, in my view, the applicants have not demonstrated any ground of review, it is necessary to examine the matter in some detail for this conclusion to be explained.