NADL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2007] FCA 208 (20 February 2007)

Last Updated: 2 March 2007

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NADL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2007] FCA 208

NADL v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1777 OF 2006

STONE J
20 FEBRUARY 2007
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1777 OF 2006

BETWEEN:	NADL Applicant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS First Respondent REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent

JUDGE:	STONE J
DATE OF ORDER:	20 FEBRUARY 2007
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application is dismissed with 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 1777 OF 2006

BETWEEN:	NADL Applicant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS First Respondent REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent

JUDGE:	STONE J
DATE:	20 FEBRUARY 2007
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1 This is an application for an extension of time within which to file a notice of appeal from a decision of Branson J which was made on 14 March 2002. The applicant is clearly well out of time and therefore needs to establish two main points: the reason for his delay, and, perhaps more importantly, that the proposed appeal is not without some prospect of success.

2 The grounds of appeal set out in the draft notice of appeal attached to the application for an extension of time merely allege that the Federal Court ‘erred in law’ and ‘was wrong in finding that the Refugee Review Tribunal acted properly in its findings.’ No particulars are given. In general the applicant’s submissions take issue with the Tribunal’s findings of fact with which this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere.

3 The applicant raised only one issue that might evoke this Court’s jurisdiction, namely an alleged breach of s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) however, neither in the submissions nor at the hearing, was the applicant able to provide particulars of the information that he alleges the Tribunal should have given him. He referred only to the obligation of the Tribunal to advise him of his rights to review and, in very general terms, to questions of country information. As neither of these issues would enliven the obligation under s 424A these submissions do not advance his case and certainly do not give me any confidence that there is any prospect of his appeal succeeding.

4 In her decision of 14 March 2002, Branson J canvassed applications made at that time by the applicant and reviewed the Tribunal’s reasons in some detail. Her Honour was satisfied that no legal error had been identified in respect of the decision of the Tribunal and I can see no error in that conclusion.

5 In relation to the question of delay the applicant’s explanation was that, being unable to afford legal assistance, he did not know that he was able to appeal until quite recently when friends brought this matter to his attention. I do not think this is a satisfactory explanation for such a longstanding delay. It is unlikely that the applicant would have been entirely unaware that there was some prospect of appeal and certainly I would expect any application directed to overcoming such a long delay to be supported by some sworn explanation, either from the applicant or from his acquaintances, especially when, as here, it is apparent that he has had some legal assistance in preparing the documents that have been filed in support of this application.

6 I therefore find that neither of the issues that the applicant needed to satisfy me about has been adequately explained or supported and for that reason the application for an extension of time must be dismissed with costs. The orders of the Court are that the application is dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Stone.

Associate: Dated: 2 March 2007

Counsel for the Applicant:	The applicant appeared in person
Solicitor for the Respondent:	B Cramer, Blake Dawson Waldron
Date of Hearing:	20 February 2007
Date of Judgment:	20 February 2007