Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NANV v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 729 NANV v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS N462 of 2003 MADGWICK J 20 JUNE 2003 SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N462 OF 2003
BETWEEN: NANV
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: MADGWICK J
DATE OF ORDER: 20 JUNE 2003
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application is dismissed. 2. The applicant is to 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 N462 OF 2003
BETWEEN: NANV
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: MADGWICK J
DATE: 20 JUNE 2003
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (revised from transcript) HIS HONOUR: 1 This is an application said to be made under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) and also praying in aid s 475A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act") seeking orders in the nature of mandamus to quash and remit for hearing a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"), dated 4 March 2003, adverse to the applicant. 2 The applicant was born on 5 October 1962 and arrived in Australia on 3 June 1998. He lodged an application for a protection visa on 14 July 1998 in which he claimed he was a citizen of India. On 28 July 1998 a delegate of the respondent refused that application. The applicant sought review of that decision but by decision dated 24 October 2000 the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision. An application for judicial review of that first Tribunal decision was dismissed by this Court on 26 April 2001. 3 The applicant took advantage of the then prevailing doctrine that his earlier application was a nullity because it had not included any claims to support his contention that he was a refugee so that he had, on that theory, not made an application for a protection visa at all. The applicant lodged another application on 3 July 2001 which, in the state of the then
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate