Applicant S317 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1886

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant S317 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1886 APPLICANT S317 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and refugee review tribunal N 2457 of 2003 JACOBSON J 22 DECEMBER 2005 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 2457 of 2003

BETWEEN: APPLICANT s317 OF 2003

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

Refugee Review Tribunal

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: JACOBSON J

DATE OF ORDER: 22 DECEMBER 2005

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. Order 51A rule 5(1) not apply. 2. The application for orders nisi be refused.

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 N 2457 of 2003

BETWEEN: APPLICANT s317 OF 2003

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

Refugee Review Tribunal

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: JACOBSON J

DATE: 22 DECEMBER 2005

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1. On 19 October 1999, the Refugee Review Tribunal ("RRT") affirmed a decision made by the respondent not to grant the applicant a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). 2. The applicant filed an application for order nisi in the High Court of Australia on 18 June 2003 and an affidavit in support on the same day. He had previously been a member of class action no S89 of 1999, Lie v Refugee Review Tribunal [2002] HCA 30. The application was remitted to this Court pursuant to orders made by Gaudron J, as varied by McHugh J, following the delivery of judgment in Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal (2002) 76 ALJR 966 ("Muin"). 3. By correspondence dated 12 November 2004, the District Registrar of the Court advised the applicant that the court proposed to consider whether there is an arguable case for the making of an order nisi on the basis of the written material before the court. The applicant was invited to file written submissions and submissions drafted by counsel for the applicant, Ms Tibbey, were filed on 10 December 2004. 4. Though the submissions were filed in December 2004, the matter has only recently been allocated to me, as it was previously understood that no written submissions had been filed. 5. I propose to deal with this application on the papers.