NANB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 759 (10 June 2004)

Last Updated: 17 June 2004

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NANB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs

[2004] FCA 759

NANB & ORS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
N 2365 OF 2003




STONE J
10 JUNE 2004
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 2365 OF 2003

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	NANB FIRST APPELLANT
	NANC SECOND APPELLANT
	NAND THIRD APPELLANT
	NANE FOURTH APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	STONE J
DATE OF ORDER:	10 JUNE 2004
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.	That the appeal be dismissed.
2.	The first and second appellants 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 2365 OF 2003

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	NANB FIRST APPELLANT
	NANC SECOND APPELLANT
	NAND THIRD APPELLANT
	NANE FOURTH APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	STONE J
DATE:	10 JUNE 2004
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1 This is an appeal from a decision of Barnes FM made on 27 November 2003. Her Honour affirmed the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal which had upheld the decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister refusing to issue protection visas to the appellants. The appellants are a family of husband, wife and two children. The claims of the wife and children depend on the claims of the first appellant to whom I shall refer as ‘the appellant’. All of the appellants are Fijians of Indian ethnicity and, based on his race, the appellant claimed fear of persecution in Fiji.

2 It is not necessary here to set out the details of those claims. They are set out in both the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal and that of the Federal Magistrate. In his notice of appeal the appellant sets out grounds of appeal which are in four categories, namely, the alleged failure of the Tribunal to accord natural justice, to exercise jurisdiction and also claims of irrationality and bias in the Tribunal's treatment of his claim. Those grounds of appeal mirror the grounds of the application which was made to the Federal Magistrates Court. The Federal Magistrate found that none of those grounds could be substantiated.

3 The appellant provided written submissions to this Court and made short oral submissions. Not surprisingly the appellant’s written submissions do not assist. It would appear that he has had some legal assistance, either directly or by way of a precedent document, in formulating those submissions. The oral submissions made before me by the appellant amounted to a plea for reconsideration of the Tribunal’s hearing on the merits, as well as a plea, which has nothing to do with the Refugee Convention, to the effect that the appellants are happy in Australia and would like to stay here.

4 As I explained to the appellant, this Court has no jurisdiction either to determine the merits of his application for a protection visa or to consider any other basis on which he would like to be granted a visa to remain in this country. The appellant has not been able to point to any errors in the decision of the Tribunal or of the Federal Magistrate that would warrant the intervention of this Court. The respondent has provided detailed written submissions which assert that the decision of the Federal Magistrate was correct and that the grounds of appeal put forward by the appellant are misconceived.

5 I accept the respondent’s submissions. Having reviewed both the decision of the Tribunal and the Federal Magistrate I can find no reviewable error. In my view the decision of the Federal Magistrate was correct for the reasons which her Honour gave and, therefore, for these reasons the appeal must be dismissed and the respondent’s costs of this appeal be paid by the first and second appellants.

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

Associate:

Dated: 16 June 2004

Counsel for the Applicant:	The appellant appeared for himself
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms R Pepper
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	10 June 2004
Date of Judgment:	10 June 2004