Applicant M183 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 523

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant M183 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 523 Décor Corporation v Dart Industries (1991) 33 FCR 397 Applicant M115/2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 1448 Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte A (2001) 185 ALR 489 APPLICANT M183 OF 2003 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND INDIGENOUS AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS V 363 OF 2004

SUNDBERG J 28 APRIL 2004 MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 363 OF 2004

BETWEEN: APPLICANT M183 OF 2003

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: SUNDBERG J

DATE OF ORDER: 28 APRIL 2004

WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 363 OF 2004

BETWEEN: APPLICANT M183 OF 2003

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: SUNDBERG J

DATE: 28 APRIL 2004

PLACE: MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 Application for leave to appeal from the decision of the Federal Magistrates Court dismissing an application for orders nisi for prohibition and certiorari directed to the Refugee Review Tribunal in respect of its affirmation of the respondent's decision to refuse the applicant a protection visa. The applicant and his family were applicants before the Magistrate, but only the husband/father seeks leave to appeal. 2 The application is supported by an affidavit by the applicant deposing that he is a Sri Lankan national who applied for a protection visa on 20 February 1997. The application was refused. The decision of the respondent was affirmed by the Refugee Review Tribunal. He says he joined in the Muin proceedings in the High Court, and subsequently filed an application in that Court. He says: "I disagree with the decision of his Honour, Federal Magistrate McInnis on the grounds that the Court is wrong when it concludes that there was no arguable basis for the application and that there has been a failure in the application to discharge the necessary evidentiary burden."