FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Applicant M143 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 1536 MIGRATION – decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal – no reviewable error APPLICANT M143 OF 2003 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS AND DR HUDSON SITTING AS THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL AND MR ADOLFO GENTILE IN HIS CAPACITY AS SENIOR MEMBER OF THE REGUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL V732 OF 2003 MERKEL J 5 DECEMBER 2003 MELBOURNE IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V732 OF 2003 BETWEEN: APPLICANT M143 OF 2003 APPLICANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS FIRST RESPONDENT DR HUDSON SITTING AS THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL AND MR ADOLFO GENTILE IN HIS CAPACITY AS SENIOR MEMBER OF THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL SECOND RESPONDENTS JUDGE: MERKEL J DATE OF ORDER: 5 DECEMBER 2003 WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE THE COURT ORDERS THAT the application be dismissed with costs. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 732 OF 2003 BETWEEN: APPLICANT M143 OF 2003 APPLICANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS FIRST RESPONDENT DR HUDSON SITTING AS THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUHNAL AND MR ADOLFO GENTILE IN HIS CAPACITY AS SENIOR MEMBER OF THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL SECOND RESPONDENT JUDGE: MERKEL J DATE: 5 DECEMBER 2003 PLACE: MELBOURNE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 In this matter the applicant is representing himself. He is a national of the Philippines who claims to have a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of political activities in which he engaged in during the late 1970s and early 1980s. He has filed contentions of fact and law in support of his claim for relief by way of prohibition and certiorari against a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") made on 27 April 1998. He was one of the represented parties in the Muin & Lie matter (Muin & Lie v The Refugee Review Tribunal (2002) 190 ALR 601 ("Muin"), which in part explains some of his delay in bringing the present application. 2 The Tribunal rejected the applicant's claim to a protection visa on the basis of adverse findings concerning his credibility and on the basis that his claims lacked substance generally. It further found that, in any event, given the current situation in the Philippines as revealed by independent country information, there was no real chance that the applicant would be persecuted as a result of his past political activities especially given that they were said to have occurred so long ago. 3 Although the respondents sought to rely on the applicant's delay in bringing his application, I have decided that the matter can be dealt with by reference to the substance of the claims rather than to whether they are out of time. 4 On the substantive issues I have carefully perused the decision and cannot discern any error that would justify judicial review by this Court. Before me the applicant was not able to point to any particular factor which went beyond his contentions of fact and law. Those contentions: (a) were expressed in the most general terms; and (b) did not disclose any real grounds for the relief he is seeking. 5 Although the applicant was a party to the Muin proceedings his contentions of fact and law do not raise, let alone satisfy, the factual bases for making out the grounds in Muin that must be satisfied before a court finds that procedural fairness has been denied. Rather, the applicant claims that the Tribunal failed to accord him procedural fairness in that it relied on a document ("United States Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights 1996, Philippines Report on Human Rights Practices for 1996") containing country information without providing the applicant with an opportunity to respond to that document. There are a number of difficulties with that claim, which are set out in detail in the respondents' submissions. The document to which the applicant points was not referred to in the Tribunal's decision and there is no basis for concluding that it was relied upon by the Tribunal or treated by it as relevant to the decision. Nor has it been established that the applicant was denied procedural fairness in relation to that document. It has not even been stated by him that the document was adverse to the case he was putting to the Tribunal. Accordingly, there is no basis for the grant of the relief that the applicant is seeking. 6 The application is refused with costs. I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Merkel. Associate: Dated: 20 December 2003 Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person Solicitor for the Respondent: E Arduca from the Australian Government Solicitor Date of Hearing: 5 December 2003 Date of Judgment: 5 December 2003