NAJV v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 1510

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NAJV v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 1510 NAJV v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS N 1472 of 2003 SACKVILLE J SYDNEY 16 DECEMBER 2003

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 1472 OF 2003

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT

BETWEEN: NAJV

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: SACKVILLE J

DATE OF ORDER: 16 DECEMBER 2003

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant 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 N 1472 OF 2003

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT

BETWEEN: NAJV

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: SACKVILLE J

DATE: 16 DECEMBER 2003

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE APPEAL 1 This is an appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court given on 4 September 2003. The learned Magistrate dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("RRT"), handed down on 28 January 2003. The RRT had affirmed a decision of the delegate of the respondent ("the Minister") to refuse to grant the appellant a protection visa. 2 The appellant was unrepresented both before the Federal Magistrates Court and in this Court. The notice of appeal does not identify any specific error of law said to have been committed by the Magistrate. The appellant has, however, filed written submissions. While these quote at some length from decisions of the High Court and the Full Federal Court, certain of the decisions referred to have been overtaken by the decision of the High Court in Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 195 ALR 24. More importantly, it is not easy to follow why the decisions referred to by the appellant are said to be relevant to the appeal. However, it does appear that the appellant intends to contend that: * the RRT brought a closed mind to his claim for a protection visa and therefore was guilty of either actual bias or the circumstances created a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the RRT; * the RRT denied the appellant procedural fairness and therefore constructively failed to exercise its jurisdiction; and * the RRT failed to address the correct question, thereby committing a further jurisdictional error.