NAUX v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 1450

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NAUX v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 1450 NAUX v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS N 981 of 2003 STONE J 9 DECEMBER 2003 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 981 OF 2003

BETWEEN: NAUX & ORS

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: STONE J

DATE OF ORDER: 9 DECEMBER 2003

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

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

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 981 OF 2003

BETWEEN: NAUX & ORS

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: STONE J

DATE: 9 DECEMBER 2003

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1 This is an application under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) filed on 14 August 2003 seeking a review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('Tribunal') affirming a decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister to refuse protection visas under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ('the Act').

2 The four applicants are a husband, his wife and their two children. The husband arrived in Australia from Sri Lanka on 16 April 1995, his wife, also from Sri Lanka, arrived later the same month. Their two children were born in Australia. On 30 June 1997 the applicants lodged an application for a protection visa. That application contained no claims and was refused by a delegate of the Minister on 18 July 1997. Subsequently the applicants' claims, in the form of statutory declarations by the husband, were put before the Tribunal which affirmed the delegate's decision. It later transpired that the original application was invalid because of the absence of claims in it. Thus the applicants were not precluded from filing a new application ('second application'), which they did on 17 April 2001. The second application was also dismissed by the Minister's delegate and the applicants again sought review in the Tribunal.