Chaudhry v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1709 (17 November 2000)

Last Updated: 24 November 2000

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Chaudhry v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1709

ABDUL RAUF CHAUDHRY v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND

MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

N 1118 OF 2000

STONE J

17 NOVEMBER 2000

SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 1118 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	ABDUL RAUF CHAUDHRY APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	STONE J
DATE OF ORDER:	17 NOVEMBER 2000
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The applicant not be given leave to appeal.

2. The applicant pay the 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	N 1118 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	ABUDL RAUF CHAUDHRY APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	STONE J
DATE:	17 NOVEMBER 2000
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1 On 11 March 1998, the Refugee Review Tribunal upheld the decision of the Minister's delegate refusing to grant a protection visa to the applicant. The time for appeal against that decision commences under s 478(1)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"), from the date on which the applicant is notified of the decision. From that date the applicant had 28 days within which to lodge his application for review.

2 Section 485 of the Act clearly states that the Court has no power to extend that period. It is not clear precisely when the applicant received notification of the decision. However, on the information available to me, the latest date on which that notification would have been received is 30 March 1998. Therefore, on the most generous interpretation of the facts, a notice of appeal would have had to have been filed by 28 April 1998.

3 In Court today, Mr Chaudhry was given an opportunity to refute the facts as put before the Court by the respondent, but he was not able to do so. In fact, he admitted in evidence that he received notification on or about 11 March 1998. In the circumstances, this court has no jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal and therefore the notice of objection to competency is upheld. The court accordingly orders that the applicant not be given leave to appeal and the applicant pay the respondents costs.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Stone.

Associate:

Dated: 23 November 2000

Solicitor for the Applicant:	The applicant appeared in person, assisted by an interpreter
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing:	17 November 2000
Date of Judgment:	17 November 2000