Applicant S328 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 103

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant S328 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 103 APPLICANT S328 OF 2003 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS NSD 1972 of 2005 WILCOX J 3 FEBRUARY 2006 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1972 of 2005

BETWEEN: APPLICANT S328 of 2003

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: WILCOX J

DATE OF ORDER: 3 FEBRUARY 2006

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The decision made on 23 November 2005 be affirmed. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs fixed at $350.00. 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 NSD 1972 of 2005

BETWEEN: APPLICANT S328 of 2003

APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: WILCOX J

DATE: 3 FEBRUARY 2006

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT WILCOX J: 1 This matter came before me on 23 November 2005 as an application for leave to appeal against the refusal of an order nisi by Jacobson J. His Honour had refused the order nisi because no jurisdictional error had been identified to him. In my judgment delivered on 23 November 2005, I noted that the application for leave to appeal and supporting affidavit also failed to identify any jurisdictional error. 2 The applicant did not appear on 23 November 2005. He told me today that he was out of Sydney and did not receive the letter notifying him of the hearing date until after his return, which was after 23 November 2005. I am prepared to assume the correctness of these statements for present purposes. 3 I asked the applicant today whether he was in a position to identify any jurisdictional error. He made it plain that he thinks the Tribunal's conclusions were wrong, but it is apparent that he is talking about the Tribunal's conclusions of fact. As I have endeavoured to explain to him, the Court has no power to review the Tribunal's conclusions of fact. 4 Despite all that has happened, no jurisdictional error has yet been identified to the Court. For that reason, I have no option but to affirm the decision that was made on 23 November 2005. 5 I will affirm the decision made on 23 November 2005. I will also order the applicant to pay the respondent's costs fixed at $350.00.