NAVK v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1695

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NAVK v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1695 MIGRATION – analysis of claims as put – circumstances where an unarticulated claim must be dealt with by the Tribunal. NABE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 263 discussed Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2003) 197 ALR 389 discussed Applicant S395/2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2003) 203 ALR 112 discussed NAVK v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs NSD 1620 of 2004 ALLSOP J 22 DECEMBER 2004 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1620 of 2004

BETWEEN: NAVK

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: ALLSOP J

DATE OF ORDER: 22 DECEMBER 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 NSD 1620 of 2004

BETWEEN: NAVK

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: ALLSOP J

DATE: 22 DECEMBER 2004

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) in respect of the fourth decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the "Tribunal") dealing with the applicant's claim for a protection visa. 2 With the permission of the parties, I do not propose to set out the background to these proceedings or the applicant's history. These are set out adequately in earlier judgments of the Court: see for example NAFQ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 473 and NAVK v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 160. 3 The amended application raised two issues which, though not entirely unrelated, were distinct.