Applicant S1053 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2006] FCA 295

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant S1053 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2006] FCA 295 APPLICANT S1053 OF 2003 v REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL AND MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS NSD 2048 OF 2005 WILCOX J 9 MARCH 2006 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2048 OF 2005

BETWEEN: APPLICANT S1053 OF 2003

APPLICANT

AND: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: WILCOX J

DATE OF ORDER: 9 MARCH 2006

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application for leave to appeal be dismissed. 2. The Applicant pay the costs of the Second Respondent fixed at $400.00. 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 2048 OF 2005

BETWEEN: APPLICANT S1053 OF 2003

APPLICANT

AND: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: WILCOX J

DATE: 9 MARCH 2006

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT WILCOX J: 1 This is an application for leave to appeal against a decision of Branson J, given on 20 October 2005, dismissing an application for an order nisi. Her Honour made that decision because she was unable to discern any jurisdictional error in the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal'). 2 The applicant filed a submission on 10 December 2004, which I have read. The matters it sets out are entirely matters of fact. 3 The applicant had the opportunity of explaining his position this morning, with the assistance of an interpreter. He has made plain to me that he disagrees with the Tribunal's findings of fact and, in particular, with the Tribunal's assessment that there was no more than a remote chance of him suffering persecution, in the way he indicated to the Tribunal, if he were returned to his native country. 4 I accept that the applicant has a strong view about this matter. However, as I pointed out to him, the facts are for the Tribunal to determine, not the Court. No jurisdictional error has been identified at any stage of this proceeding. None was apparent to Branson J. None is apparent to me. In the circumstances, it would be inappropriate to grant leave to appeal. 5 The application for leave to appeal will be dismissed with costs.