WAEL of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 175 (30 May 2002)

Last Updated: 11 June 2002

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WAEL of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs

[2002] FCAFC 175

APPELLANT WAEL of 2002 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

W 35 of 2002

WHITLAM, NORTH and STONE JJ

30 MAY 2002

PERTH

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	W 35 of 2002

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	APPELLANT WAEL of 2002 APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGES:	WHITLAM, NORTH and STONE JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	30 MAY 2002
WHERE MADE:	PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The appellant is to 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
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	W 35 of 2002

BETWEEN:	APPELLANT WAEL of 2002 APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGES:	WHITLAM, NORTH and STONE JJ
DATE:	30 MAY 2002
PLACE:	PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

1 This is an appeal from a judgment of French J dismissing with costs an application filed on 7 November 2001 to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). Such a decision is a "privative clause decision" within the meaning of s 474(2) of the Migration Act 1958 ("the Act") and, by virtue of s 474(1) of the Act, must not be reviewed in any court. The application did not invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903.

2 The notice of appeal did not state any proper grounds of appeal. This was hardly surprising as the appellant had the misfortune not to be represented by a lawyer. (He was also unrepresented in the Court below.) The appellant told us of his distress about not being believed by the Tribunal. We have been assisted by the careful written submissions of counsel for the respondent on the appeal. As the primary judge pointed out, the Tribunal's decision turned entirely upon its view of the appellant's credibility. That is, of course, a matter for the Tribunal.

3 We agree with the orders made by French J for the reasons he gave. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed with costs.

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

Associate:

Dated: 11 June 2002

The appellant appeared in person.

Counsel for the respondent:	L A Tsaknis
Solicitor for the respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of hearing:	30 May 2002
Date of judgment:	30 May 2002