MZWLJ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1869

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MZWLJ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1869 MZWLJ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS VID 903 OF 2005 NORTH J 28 NOVEMBER 2005 MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VID 903 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: MZWLJ

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: NORTH J

DATE OF ORDER: 28 NOVEMBER 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 903 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: MZWLJ

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: NORTH J

DATE: 28 NOVEMBER 2005

PLACE: MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from a decision of Federal Magistrate McInnis delivered on 19 July 2005. The Federal Magistrate dismissed an application for review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) dated 10 July 2000. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate of the respondent, the Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, not to grant the appellant a protection visa. The appeal is heard by a single judge of the Court pursuant to a direction of the Chief Justice dated 11 October 2005. 2 The appellant, a citizen of Sri Lanka, claimed to fear persecution on the basis of an imputed political opinion, namely, support for the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). 3 The decision of the Federal Magistrate sets out the facts of the case and the long history of litigation, so they need not be repeated. In summary, the appellant alleged that government forces questioned and assaulted him in the course of interrogation because he was believed to support the LTTE. The appellant stated that this belief arose from two facts, namely, that he was married to a Tamil woman and that he had supported a Tamil friend for many years. The amended notice of appeal claimed the Federal Magistrate had failed to find that the Tribunal had committed jurisdictional error. The particulars of the jurisdictional error are stated as follows: