NAZO v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCAFC 28 (24 February 2005)

Last Updated: 10 March 2005

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NAZO v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs

[2005] FCAFC 28

NAZO, NAZP, NAZQ, NAZR, NAZS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

NSD 1435 of 2004


WILCOX, BRANSON and BENNETT JJ
24 FEBRUARY 2005
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1435 of 2004

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	NAZO, NAZP, NAZQ, NAZR, NAZS APPELLANTS
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	WILCOX, BRANSON and BENNETT JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	24 FEBRUARY 2005
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed.
2. The adult 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	NSD 1435 of 2004

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	NAZO, NAZP, NAZQ, NAZR, NAZS APPELLANTS
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	WILCOX, BRANSON and BENNETT JJ
DATE:	24 FEBRUARY 2005
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

1 This is an appeal against a decision of Allsop J. His Honour dismissed an application under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) for prerogative relief to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) made on 5 November 2003. The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, to refuse protection visas to the applicants. The applicants consist of a husband and wife and their two children.

2 It is not necessary for us to go into the facts. They are revealed in the Tribunal’s reasons for decision.

3 The reasons for judgment of Allsop J, show that he carefully considered a number of matters that were put to him in support of the claim that the Tribunal had made a jurisdictional error. His Honour gave reasons for rejecting each of the arguments and concluded that the application for review must fail. He dismissed the proceeding.

4 The male adult appellant has appeared today on behalf of himself and the other members of his family. Prior to the hearing, he forwarded to the Court a lengthy submission dealing with a number of matters and annexing various materials. Most of the material set out in the submission is irrelevant to his case. Much of it constitutes statements about the law, which are not controversial.

5 Only two matters are advanced in the submission which have a bearing upon the appellants’ case: first, a submission that the Tribunal erred by failing to verify certain information and, second, that it failed to consider properly and analyse the definition of ‘persecution’ under the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees.

6 The latter proposition is clearly unfounded. The Tribunal, at page 3 of its reasons, dealt with the concept of persecution in a way that is legally unexceptional.

7 We understand the criticisms made by the appellant in relation to the Tribunal’s alleged factual errors. However, the correctness of the Tribunal’s findings of fact are not matters which can be litigated in this Court on judicial review. We express no opinion as to whether the Tribunal’s findings in this case are vulnerable to criticism; it is not the function of the Court to do that. It is sufficient to say that the appellants have not suggested an error of law or failure to follow proper procedures. None is apparent to us. Matters that might have been argued to fall into this category were considered and rejected by Allsop J. We see no reason to disagree with him.

8 It seems to us inevitable that the appeal must be dismissed. The order of the Court will be that the appeal be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Court.

Associate:

Dated: 10 March 2005

The Appellant appeared in person.
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr R Bromwich
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	24 February 2005
Date of Judgment:	24 February 2005