WACE v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 73 (5 February 2002)

Last Updated: 13 March 2002

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WACE v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 73

MIGRATION - judicial review - Refugee Review Tribunal - applicant wanting to leave Australia - no apparent error - application dismissed.

WACE v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

W534 OF 2001

FRENCH J

5 FEBRUARY 2002

PERTH

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	W534 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	WACE APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	FRENCH J
DATE OF ORDER:	5 FEBRUARY 2002
WHERE MADE:	PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application is dismissed.

2. The Applicant pay the Respondent's costs of the application.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	W534 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	WACE APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	FRENCH J
DATE:	5 FEBRUARY 2002
PLACE:	PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1 This is an application which was filed on 27 November 2001 to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). The applicant arrived in Australia by boat on 9 October 2000. He is a stateless Palestinian who was formerly resident in Syria. The applicant lodged an application for a protection visa on 22 January 2001. That application was refused on 15 March. On 23 March, he applied to the Tribunal for review of that decision. He contended that if he returned to Syria he would be persecuted.

2 The basis of his contention was that he had deserted from the Syrian Army and had made complaints about corruption of a leading General. Important elements of his story were not accepted by the Tribunal. In the event, the Tribunal was not satisfied that he was a person who was a refugee to whom Australia owed protection obligations under the Refugee Convention.

3 On 31 October 2001, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant him a protection visa. On 27 November 2001, the applicant filed an application in this Court for an order for review of the Tribunal's decision. Although this is the old form of application, I would have been prepared to accept it as properly invoking the jurisdiction of the Court. The application, however, disclosed no grounds upon which the Court could interfere with the decision of the Tribunal.

4 The provisions of s 474 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) require that a decision of the Tribunal be treated as final and conclusive, but quite apart from that the grounds themselves do not disclose any error of law or procedure nor are any such grounds apparent from the reasons of the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the applicant's application because it didn't believe certain parts of his account.

5 Today I have explained to the applicant the severe limitations on the power of the Court to interfere with the Tribunal decision. He told the Court that he has already informed the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs of his desire to return to Syria. It appears that he does not wish to proceed with the application and in any event there do not appear to be any grounds upon which the application could succeed.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice French.

Associate:

Dated: 5 February 2002

	Mr WACE appeared on his own behalf by video.
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr RL Hooker
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	5 February 2002
Date of Judgment:	5 February 2002