Applicants S 194 of 2002 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2003] FCA 615

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Applicants S 194 of 2002 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2003] FCA 615 MIGRATION – whether the applicants were denied procedural fairness through the failure of the Refugee Review Tribunal to draw an adverse document to their attention - whether the applicants were denied procedural fairness through the failure of the Refugee Review Tribunal to consider a part B document.

Constitution s 75(v) Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 44 Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 417, 418(3), 424(3)(a) Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal (2002) 76 ALJR 966 followed Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Lam (2003) 77 ALJR 699 followed SBBA v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2003] FCAFC 90 cited Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Islam [2001] FCA 1681 cited Parra v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 85 cited Re Refugee Review Tribunal and Anor; Ex parte Aala (2000) 204 CLR 82 Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 206 CLR 323 referred to Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 considered APPLICANTS S 194 OF 2002 V REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL & MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS N 62 of 2003 JACOBSON J 19 JUNE 2003 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 62 of 2003

BETWEEN: APPLICANTS S 194 of 2002

APPLICANT

AND: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: JACOBSON J

DATE OF ORDER: 19 JUNE 2003

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. A writ of prohibition be issued out of this Court directed to the second respondent to prevent the second respondent from acting on the decision of the first respondent made on 14 May 1999. 2. A writ of certiorari be issued out of this Court directed to the first respondent removing into this Court the decision of the first respondent made on 14 May 1999 and hereby quashing that decision. 3. A writ of mandamus be issued out of this Court directed to the first respondent directing the first respondent to hear and determine the applicants' review application according to law. 4. Time be extended to the date of the filing of the originating process in these proceedings. 5. The second respondent pay the applicants' costs of the proceedings. 6. There be no order as to the costs of the first respondent in these proceedings. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.