NAKV v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 314

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NAKV v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 314 NAKV and NAKW v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS N 20 of 2004 SACKVILLE J SYDNEY 24 MARCH 2004

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 20 OF 2004

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT

BETWEEN: NAKV and NAKW

APPELLANTS

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: SACKVILLE J

DATE OF ORDER: 24 MARCH 2004

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellants 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 20 OF 2004

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT

BETWEEN: NAKV and NAKW

APPELLANTS

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: SACKVILLE J

DATE: 24 MARCH 2004

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE APPEAL 1 This is an appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court given on 19 December 2003. Her Honour dismissed an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("RRT") handed down on 18 February 2003. The RRT had affirmed a decision of the delegate of the respondent ("Minister") to refuse to grant the appellants a protection visa. 2 The appellants, who are husband and wife, are Russian citizens. They arrived in Australia on 30 July 2000 and applied for a protection visa on 5 September 2000. Their application was refused on 4 October 2000 and they thereafter applied to the RRT for review of that decision. 3 The first appellant claimed to fear persecution in Russia on the basis of political opinion, namely his imputed support for and involvement with the rebels in Chechnya. The second appellant claimed to be a member of the family unit of the first appellant and made no independent claim to fear persecution on one of the grounds specified in the Convention relating to the status of refugees ("Convention"). 4 The appellants gave evidence before the RRT on 24 October 2002. They were assisted by an interpreter in the Russian language and were represented by a solicitor. The RRT delivered detailed reasons for rejecting their claims. In substance, it found that the specific claims made by the appellants had been fabricated. The RRT explained at length why it had reached that conclusion. 5 The appellants were not represented at the hearing in the Magistrates Court. The appellants did not file any written submissions, but the first appellant made oral submissions to the Court. The learned Magistrate distilled four grounds of review from the appellant's oral submissions. Her Honour, in a reserved judgment, gave careful consideration to each of these grounds and found them to be without substance. 6 The notice of appeal identifies the following grounds of appeal: "(a) the learned Magistrate erred in finding that the Tribunal did not make a jurisdictional error in affirming the decision to refuse a protection visa. (b) Some high relevant documents have been not released to the Green Book before the Magistrate Court." (Emphasis in original.) The appellants did not file any written submissions in support of the appeal. However, in his oral submissions, the first appellant referred to an affidavit he had sworn to which he annexed translations of several reports from Russian newspapers published in November and December 2000. He complained that the RRT had not taken these documents into account in making its factual findings.