NABG v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 789

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NABG v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 789

MIGRATION – appeal from decision of Federal Magistrate – whether jurisdictional error on the part of the Refugee Review Tribunal – no error established – no question of principle

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39B Migration Act 1958 (Cth) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 25(1)(a)

NABG v Minister for Immigration [2003] FMCA 78 affirmed NABG & ORS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS N274 OF 2003 EMMETT J 5 JUNE 2003 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N274 OF 2003

BETWEEN: NABG

FIRST APPELLANT

NABH

SECOND APPELLANT

NABI

THIRD APPELLANT

NABJ

FOURTH APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: EMMETT J

DATE OF ORDER: 5 JUNE 2003

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. the appeal be dismissed; 2. the appellants pay the respondent's costs of the appeal. 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 N274 OF 2003

BETWEEN: NABG

FIRST APPELLANT

NABH

SECOND APPELLANT

NABI

THIRD APPELLANT

NABJ

FOURTH APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: EMMETT J

DATE: 5 JUNE 2003

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The four appellants are citizens of Bangladesh. They arrived in Australia on 6 February 2000 and applied for protection visas under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ('the Act') on 25 February 2000. On 20 March 2000, a delegate of the respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs ('the Minister'), refused to grant their application and, on 12 April 2000, they applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') for review of that decision. On 13 August 2002, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant protection visas. The Tribunal published its reasons for that decision on 3 September 2002. 2 On 26 September 2002, the appellants applied to this court for orders under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) reviewing the decision of the Tribunal. A judge of the Court referred that application to the Federal Magistrates Court. On 19 February 2003, for reasons given on that day, Raphael FM ordered that the application be dismissed and that the applicants pay the Minister's costs: see NABG v Minister for Immigration [2003] FMCA 78. By notice of appeal filed on 10 March 2003, the appellants appealed from the whole of the judgment of Raphael FM to this Court. On 7 May 2003, the Chief Justice determined, pursuant to s 25(1)(a) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), that the appeal be heard and determined by a single judge. 3 Only the first appellant appeared in court today. He appeared, without objection, on behalf of the other appellants as well. He appeared in person with the assistance of an interpreter. 4 The grounds of review set out in the original application to this Court were stated as follows: 'The … Tribunal has not attended any evidence in relation to the applicant's claims and thus its decision is influenced by sufficient doubts. The applicant provided a suitable vehicle and most of the grounds relied upon facts and documents, which the Tribunal did not consider. Thus the applicant rely on the following grounds: (a) The … Tribunal did not follow the proper procedure as required by the [Act]. Thus the procedures that were required by the Act or regulations to be observed in connection with the making of the decision were not observed (Moin, Lee's (sic) case). (b) The [Tribunal] decision was affected by an "Error of Law" and "Jurisdictional Error". (c) There was no evidence or other material to justify the making of the decision.'