Applicant S277 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 304

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant S277 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 304 APPLICANT S277 of 2003 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS S 2560 OF 2003 TAMBERLIN J SYDNEY 18 MARCH 2004

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N2560 OF 2003

BETWEEN: APPLICANT S277 OF 2003

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: TAMBERLIN J

DATE OF ORDER: 18 MARCH 2004

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with 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 N2560 OF 2003

BETWEEN: APPLICANT S277 OF 2003

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: TAMBERLIN J

DATE: 18 MARCH 2004

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is a purported appeal from an interlocutory judgment of Emmett J given on 4 December 2003. An appeal to this Court from the judgment of Emmett J clearly requires leave and none has been obtained. In the circumstances, I consider that the purported notice of appeal should be treated as an application for leave to appeal.

Background 2 The appellant is a citizen of Fiji who arrived in Australia on 2 November 1997. On 11 April 2000, he lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs ("the Department"). 3 The appellant claimed that he did not wish to return to Fiji because he had no one on whom to depend since his mother had died, and because the decline in the Fijian economy means that there are fewer opportunities for work and less pay is being offered. He also claimed that he would be seen as an outcast and face discrimination because he does not have any parents. 4 On 20 April 2000, a delegate of the respondent made a decision refusing to grant the appellant a protection visa. On 26 April 2000 the appellant sought review of this decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the RRT"). The RRT upheld the delegate's decision on 18 May 2000. 5 The matter has had a considerable history. When it came on for hearing before Emmett J on 4 December 2003, his Honour acceded to the respondent's application for the proceeding to be dismissed pursuant to O 10 r 7(2) of the Federal Court Rules for failing to comply with a direction of the Court.