VRAF v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 703

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VRAF v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs

[2005] FCA 703 MIGRATION – appeal – no error disclosed Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 91R Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf [2001] 206 CLR 323, referred to APPLICANT VRAF v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS V 26 OF 2005 MARSHALL J 31 MAY 2005 MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VID 26 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: VRAF

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: MARSHALL J

DATE OF ORDER: 31 MAY 2005

WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal. 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 VID 26 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: VRAF

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: MARSHALL J

DATE: 31 MAY 2005

PLACE: MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from a judgment of a Federal Magistrate given on 23 December 2004. On that day his Honour dismissed an application by the appellant for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the RRT").

Background 2 The appellant is a citizen of Sri Lanka. She entered Australia on 12 August 2000 as the holder of a visitor's visa (valid for 3 months) to attend the baptism of her nephew and be his godmother. On 14 September 2000, the appellant applied for a protection visa. On 28 September 2000 a delegate of the respondent refused that application. 3 By application received by the RRT on 18 October 2000, the appellant sought a merits review of the decision of the delegate by the RRT. In a decision dated 12 June 2003, and "handed down" on 4 July 2003, the RRT affirmed the delegate's decision that the appellant was not entitled to a protection visa. 4 The basis of the appellant's claim was that she feared persecution, on account of her imputed political beliefs and the political beliefs of her family and her husband's family, if returned to Sri Lanka. Put shortly, she relied on the following matters in support of her application: · while she was in Australia, a mob, hostile to the political party she supported, entered her house by force and assaulted her husband and her seven year old daughter and threatened to kill every member of her family;