Applicant S146 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 502

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant S146 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 502 APPLICANT S146 OF 2003 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS NSD 14 OF 2006 EDMONDS J 9 MAY 2006 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 14 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: APPLICANT S146 OF 2003

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: EDMONDS J

DATE OF ORDER: 3 MAY 2006

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the first respondent's costs. 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 14 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: APPLICANT S146 OF 2003

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: EDMONDS J

DATE: 9 MAY 2006

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Edmonds J:

Introduction 1 Thisis an appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court (Scarlett FM) dismissing an application for an order nisi quashing a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') handed down on 28 December 2001, which affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs ('the Minister') not to grant a protection visa.

Background 2 The appellant is a citizen of Nepal who arrived in Australia on a temporary business visa on 30 November 1998. On 11 January 1999 he lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs ('the Department'). 3 The appellant's claims were set out in that application. In summary, the appellant claimed to fear persecution in Nepal by reason of his political opinion. He claimed he was an active member of the Nepalese Congress Party. The appellant claimed attempts had been made to kill him by Maoist hit-squads. The appellant claimed he had been harassed, threatened, attacked and abused many times and that he was afraid to return to Nepal. 4 On 19 February 1999, a delegate of the Minister made a decision refusing to grant the appellant a protection visa.