MZWBP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1506

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MZWBP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1506 MZWBP v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL VID 98 OF 2005 SUNDBERG J 26 OCTOBER 2005 MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VID 98 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: MZWBP

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: SUNDBERG J

DATE OF ORDER: 26 OCTOBER 2005

WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The Refugee Review Tribunal be added as a respondent. 2. The appeal be dismissed. 3. The appellant pay the first 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 98 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: MZWBP

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: SUNDBERG J

DATE: 26 OCTOBER 2005

PLACE: MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from the decision of the Federal Magistrates Court dismissing an application to review the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal affirming the Minister's delegate's refusal to grant the appellant a protection visa. Pursuant to s 25(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act, the Chief Justice directed that the appeal be heard and determined by a single judge. The appellant's claims and the evidence before the Tribunal are contained in its reasons, and are summarised in the Magistrate's judgment. It is not necessary to set them out again. 2 The appellant's grounds of appeal are: "a. The Federal Court erred in not finding that the RRT acted in bad faith or with bias. b. The Federal Court erred in finding no reviewable Legal error in the decision of the RRT. c. The RRT failed to make a careful and thorough review of the applicant's case and the Federal Court erred in not finding this. d. The Federal Court erred in not finding a jurisdictional error in the decision of the RRT. e. The Federal court erred in not finding that the matter should be remitted to the RRT and that the decision of the RRT be questioned or set aside."