M18/2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 1289

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

M18/2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 1289 SBBS v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2002) 194 ALR 749 applied NAAX v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2002) 119 FCR 312 applied Iyer v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2001) 192 ALR 71 applied

M 18/2002 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL V676 OF 2002 SUNDBERG J 12 NOVEMBER 2003 MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V676 OF 2002

BETWEEN: M 18/2002

APPLICANTS

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: SUNDBERG J

DATE OF ORDER: 12 NOVEMBER 2003

WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V676 OF 2002

BETWEEN: M 18/2002

APPLICANTS

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: SUNDBERG J

DATE: 12 NOVEMBER 2003

PLACE: MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BACKGROUND 1 The applicants are a mother and two daughters. They are all Sri Lankan nationals from the minority Burgher ethnic group. They entered Australia on 20 May 2000. On 29 June they lodged an application for a protection (class XA) visa. Only the mother (the applicant) made specific claims under the Refugees Convention. The daughters were included in the application as members of her family unit. A delegate of the first respondent (the respondent) refused the application. The applicant applied for review of that decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal. The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision. The applicant applied to the High Court for an order nisi in respect of the Tribunal's decision. The matter was remitted to this Court. The only ground relied on in the application is that the Tribunal "did not make a bona fide attempt to exercise its power".