Rattan v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 150 (22 February 2002)

Last Updated: 14 March 2002

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Rattan v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 150

MIGRATION: Appeal - no error in primary judge's reasons.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 476

Rajnesh Harish Rattan v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs

N 1150 of 2001

HEEREY, TAMBERLIN & ALLSOP JJ

22 February 2002

SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N1150 of 2001

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	RAJNESH HARISH RATTAN APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	HEEREY, TAMBERLIN & ALLSOP JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	22 FEBRUARY 2002
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

the appeal be 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	N1150 of 2001

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	RAJNESH HARISH RATTAN APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	HEEREY, TAMBERLIN & ALLSOP JJ
DATE:	22 FEBRUARY 2002
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

1 This is an appeal from the orders of a Judge of the Court made on 23 July 2001 dismissing an application for review by the appellant from a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) which affirmed the decision of a delegate of the respondent to refuse the appellant a protection visa.

2 The appellant is a citizen of Fiji of Indian ethnicity. He came to Australia on 11 July 1999 on a student visa intending to study in Australia. While in Australia he was arrested in relation to an assault. He apparently breached the bail conditions of an apprehended violence order imposed on him. He served a short term of imprisonment. These matters led to his failure to comply with the conditions of his student visa. He then lodged an application for a protection visa.

3 The applicant claimed to fear being returned to Fiji, saying that he would be detained, tortured and persecuted.

4 It is unnecessary to set out the appellant's claims before the Tribunal. They are dealt with at length by the Tribunal over fifteen pages. The Tribunal found that some aspects of his claims had been fabricated and some had been exaggerated.

5 The primary judge examined the reasons of the Tribunal and noted that the only complaint put to him was that the Tribunal's decision was wrong factually and that the appellant and his partner would be in danger if returned to Fiji. The primary judge indicated that he had explained to the appellant that the factual correctness of materials contained in the Tribunal's reasons is not a matter with which he could be concerned in judicial review without an operative legal error. The primary judge said that he had carefully read the Tribunal's reasons, which he in part summarised, and could see no error in the Tribunal's reasons which would found a ground of review under subs 476(1) of the Migration Act (1958) (Cth) (the Act).

6 The Notice of Appeal identifies no error of law recognisable under s 476 of the Act. Under the heading "order sought" the appellant states:

There are some facts in my case which I believe the judge overlooked and the decision was not just. I wish to proceed with my case with the guidance of a representative to put my case again.

7 We have examined the reasons of the Tribunal and the reasons of the primary judge. No error of law appears either from the Tribunal's reasons or the reasons of the primary judge.

8 In these circumstances the appeal must be dismissed with costs.

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

Associate:

Dated: 22 February 2002

The applicant appeared in person with the assistance of an interpreter.
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms K Sant
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	22 February 2002
Date of Judgment:	22 February 2002