M1002/2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1888

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

M1002/2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1888 M1002/2003 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS VID 964 OF 2005 NORTH J 14 DECEMBER 2005 MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VID 964 OF 2005

BETWEEN: M1002/2003

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: NORTH J

DATE OF ORDER: 14 DECEMBER 2005

WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal is dismissed with costs.

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 964 OF 2005

BETWEEN: M1002/2003

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: NORTH J

DATE: 14 DECEMBER 2005

PLACE: MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 Before the Court is an appeal against a decision of Federal Magistrate McInnis delivered 28 July 2005. The Federal Magistrate refused an application for extension of time and dismissed with costs, the application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) dated 16 November 2000. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs not to grant the appellant a protection visa. The appeal was heard by a single judge of the Court pursuant to a determination made by the Chief Justice under s 25(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) on 4 October 2005. 2 The appellant, a citizen of Sri Lanka, is a Tamil speaking Muslim. He claimed a fear of persecution by a number of organisations. Firstly, by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) because he identified some LTTE members. Secondly, by members of the People's Alliance (PA) because he worked for the United National Party (UNP), finally by members of the government security forces and allied militant groups because of his suspected assistance to the LTTE. 3 The appellant was represented in the Federal Magistrates Court by pro bono counsel. A number of grounds for the review were argued without success. The appellant filed Notice of Appeal on 18 August 2005. which specified the following grounds of appeal: (1) the Magistrate erred in law in finding that the RRT had not denied the appellant procedural fairness; (2) finding that there was evidence upon which his credibility could be questioned; (3) in not allowing for extension of time; errors go to jurisdiction. The appellant was directed to file submissions in support of the appeal but he did not do so. 4 The appellant was assisted on the appeal by an interpreter. The appellant said that he had tried to get legal assistance but did not succeed. The Court explained to the appellant the nature of the appeal and gave him the opportunity to place before the Court any criticisms of the decision of the Federal Magistrate. The appellant explained that he could not argue any legal error. 5 The appellant was then invited to explain any other criticisms of the Federal Magistrates decision. The appellant explained that he had worked for the UNP and had difficulties in Sri Lanka as a result. This was a factual issue going to the merits which did not disclose any matter relevant to the appeal. In the absence of arguments to support the appeal, the appeal is dismissed with costs. I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice North.