Rahamat v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1899 (11 December 2001)

Last Updated: 16 January 2002

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Rahamat v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1899

REHAS RAHAMAT v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

N1286 of 2001

GYLES J

SYDNEY

11 DECEMBER 2001

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DISTRICT REGISTRY	N1286 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	REHAS RAHAMAT APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	GYLES J
DATE OF ORDER:	11 DECEMBER 2001
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application is dismissed.

2. The Applicant pay the costs of the Respondent.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DISTRICT REGISTRY	N1286 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	REHAS RAHAMAT APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	GYLES J
DATE:	11 DECEMBER 2001
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (EX TEMPORE)

1 On 10 September 2001 Rehas Rahamat ("the Applicant") filed an application for an order of review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") made on

23 July 2001, and notified by the Tribunal on or about 14 August 2001, whereby the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the respondent Minister ("the Respondent") not to grant a protection visa to the Applicant. The application seeks a review on purely formal grounds with no particulars given. The Applicant has not filed any submissions setting out the nature of the case. The transcript records what he has said to me about his case. The substance of it was that the Tribunal had ignored matter that he had put before it and failed to taken account of what he called the "current situation" in Fiji.

2 The Applicant is a national of Fiji of indo-ethnicity. He is a Muslim and calls himself a Meeladi Muslim. Neither the submissions which he has made before me nor the document he has filed by way of an application point to any particular matter which was ignored by the Tribunal. It is not the task of this Court to closely scrutinise the claims of the Applicant against the record of the Tribunal to see how the Tribunal dealt with each claim. I have read the decision of the Tribunal and I can detect no obvious omission on the part of the Tribunal to deal with the claims of the Applicant. In the circumstances, the Applicant does not put forward any substantial case for consideration and I am bound to dismiss his application.

3 The order of the Court is that the application is dismissed and the Applicant pay the costs of the Respondent.

I certify that the preceding three (3)

numbered paragraphs are a true copy

of the Reasons for Judgment herein

of the Honourable Justice Gyles.

Associate:

Dated: 15 January 2002

The Applicant was self-represented.

Solicitor for the Respondent: S Hanstein

Blake Dawson Waldron

Date of Hearing: 11 December 2001

Date of Judgment: 11 December 2001