Ezisi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 589 (21 April 1999)

Last Updated: 12 May 1999

CATEGORY: NO QUESTION OF PRINCIPLE

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Ezisi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 589

C EZISI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

NG1353 of 1998

WILCOX J

21 APRIL 1999

SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG1353 of 1998

BETWEEN:	C EZISI Applicant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent

JUDGE:	WILCOX
DATE:	21 APRIL 1999
PLACE:	SYDNEY

EXTEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1 WILCOX J: This is another example of a situation which is unhappily all too common in this Court; an unrepresented applicant, who does not speak English and has had to be assisted by an interpreter, comes hoping that the Court will take a different view of the merits of his case than the Refugee Review Tribunal.

2 The applicant, Mr Ezisi, sincerely believes the Tribunal incorrectly assessed the risk to him if he is returned to his native Nigeria. Perhaps he is right to feel that way, perhaps he is wrong. This is not a matter for me, as I have endeavoured to explain to him more than once during the hearing this afternoon.

3 I pointed out to Mr Ezisi that the Court can interfere with the Tribunal's decision only if it is satisfied that the Tribunal made a mistake of law, or failed to provide to him a fair hearing of his application for a review. There is no suggestion of a denial of a fair hearing, and Mr Ezisi has not been able to identify any mistake of law. Believing, before I came into Court, that Mr Ezisi might not be legally represented, I carefully read the reasons of the Tribunal and considered whether they appeared to reveal any error of law. I was unable to detect any such error. The result is that there is no matter put before me which might arguably justify the Court intervening in the case.

4 The application demonstrates, once again, the desirability of early independent legal advice so that applicants will understand the limits of the Court's powers. I believe that with such advice many applicants would not pursue their applications and thus save considerable costs both for the Minister and the Court in handling pointless applications.

5 In the circumstances, the appropriate order is for the application to be dismissed with costs. I so order.

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

Associate:

Dated: 21 April 1999

Applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	D Jordan
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	21 April 1999