NAWJ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 54

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NAWJ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 54 MIGRATION – whether invitation by Refugee Review Tribunal to give additional information was "received" by the applicant – whether invitation complied with the legislation

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39B Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 424, 424C, 425, 441A, 441C NAWJ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS N 1514 OF 2003 SACKVILLE J SYDNEY 5 FEBRUARY 2004

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N1514 OF 2003

BETWEEN: NAWJ

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: SACKVILLE J

DATE OF ORDER: 5 FEBRUARY 2004

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed. 2. The applicant 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 N1514 OF 2003

BETWEEN: NAWJ

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: SACKVILLE J

DATE: 5 FEBRUARY 2004

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application pursuant to s 39B(1) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) seeking relief in respect of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("RRT") made on 8 August 2003, but handed down on 4 September 2003. The RRT affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent ("the Minister") not to grant a protection visa to the applicant. 2 The applicant has appeared in this Court without legal representation. The ground of the application is as follows: "The RRT found that the applicant had failed to satisfy the basic requirement for the grant of the visa. In making this finding, the RRT ignored parts of the applicant's claims in the statement attached to her application for the relevant visa submitted. In doing so, the RRT ignored relevant material or reached a decision that could not reasonably have been reached, or reached a decision without reasonable or rational foundation, giving rise to the incorrect finding that the applicant is not entitled to the relevant visa and give [sic] rise to jurisdictional error." 3 The applicant was directed to file written submissions in advance of the hearing, but did not do so. The applicant was in Court when that direction was made. However, I also directed the Minister's representatives to notify the applicant in writing of the direction. Unfortunately, it appears that this was not done. I do not think that the failure of the Minister's representatives to comply with the direction has caused any injustice in this case, as the applicant was given an opportunity to put her submissions at the hearing. Nonetheless, I wish to emphasise that it is essential that the Minister's representatives comply with directions given by the Court.