NAWD v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 770

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NAWD v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 770 NAWD v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS N1489 OF 2003 BENNETT J 2 JUNE 2004 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N1489 OF 2003

BETWEEN: NAWD

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: BENNETT J

DATE OF ORDER: 2 JUNE 2004

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application is dismissed.

2. The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N1489 OF 2003

BETWEEN: NAWD

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: BENNETT J

DATE: 2 JUNE 2004

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) seeking review of a decision made by the Refugee Review Tribunal ( 'the Tribunal') on 19 August 2003 and handed down on 16 September 2003. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent ('the Delegate') to refuse the applicant a protection visa. The application to this Court, filed on 29 September 2003, makes no assertion of jurisdictional error nor does it give any particulars relevant to such an assertion. The application, in effect, asks for the decision of the Tribunal to be set aside and provides a chronology of the applicant's arrival in Australia, when he applied for a protection visa and when the application was refused by the Delegate and the Tribunal. At the hearing before me today, the applicant appeared in person assisted by an interpreter.

background 2 The applicant is a 27 year old male and a national of India. He entered Australia on 31 March 2002 on a business visa. On 29 April 2002 he lodged an application for a protection (class XA) visa. The applicant claimed a well-founded fear of persecution in India on the basis of his political opinion arising from his support of the Kerala Congress (M) Party. In his application he claimed that: (a) he was a candidate in his school elections in 1990 and that members of the opposition Communist Party of India threatened that they would not allow him to enter the school; (b) he complained to the police who arrested some of them but thereafter 'party members attacked [him] frequently'; (c) he started his own business in 1997 but his workers were members of the Communist Party and 'they were making problems with Party support'; and (d) after the assembly election in his state, party members attacked him and their intention was to kill him. 3 On 21 May 2002, the Delegate wrote to the applicant and invited him to comment on the following information: