S1835 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2005] FCA 1443

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

S1835 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2005] FCA 1443

S1835 of 2003 v REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL AND MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

NSD 2392 of 2003 BRANSON J 20 OCTOBER 2005 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2392 of 2003

ON REMITTAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: S1835 of 2003

APPLICANT

AND: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: BRANSON J

DATE OF ORDER: 20 OCTOBER 2005

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application for an order nisi be dismissed.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2392 of 2003

ON REMITTAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: S1835 of 2003

APPLICANT

AND: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: BRANSON J

DATE: 20 OCTOBER 2005

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 On 31 August 1994, the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs ('the Minister') refusing the applicant a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). 2 The applicant filed an application for an order nisi in the High Court on 1 July 2003 requiring the respondents to show cause why constitutional writs should not be issued in respect of a decision of the Tribunal said to have been made on 31 August 1993. It seems clear that the reference to '1993' is an error and should read '1994'. The application was remitted to this Court pursuant to orders made by Gaudron J, as varied by McHugh J, following the delivery of the High Court's judgment in Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal (2002) 76 ALJR 966. 3 The applicant, a citizen of Pakistan, supported his application for an order nisi by an affidavit sworn by the applicant's then instructing solicitor and filed on 13 June 2003. On 16 April 2004 the applicant filed a notice of intention to act in person. By correspondence of 12 November 2004, the District Registrar of the Federal Court informed the applicant that the Court proposed to consider whether there is an arguable case for the granting of an order nisi on the basis of written material before the Court. The applicant was invited to provide written submissions on the question of whether the Court should make an order nisi and did so on 10 December 2004. 4 I propose to deal with this application on the papers. 5 The applicant's submissions disclose that the applicant lodged an application for a protection visa in January 1993 and a further application for a protection visa in April 1995 based on changed circumstances. Each application was refused by a delegate of the Minister. The first application was the subject of review in the Tribunal's decision delivered on 31 August 1994 ('the first Tribunal decision'). The second application was the subject of review in a decision of the Tribunal delivered on 17 October 1996 ('the second Tribunal decision'). 6 It is, in my view, a complete answer to the applicant's application for the issue of an order nisi that he made a subsequent application for a protection visa that was considered and refused by a delegate of the Minister and that the Tribunal subsequently entertained his application for review of the decision of the delegate. Nonetheless, I propose to give brief consideration to the two decisions of the Tribunal.