FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Velez-Vega v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 336

JOSE MANUEL VELEZ-VEGA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION and MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

NG 1315 OF 1998

WHITLAM J

18 MARCH 1999

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.                  The application is dismissed with costs.

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (EX TEMPORE)

1                     This is an application to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) made on 5 November 1998 affirming a decision not to grant a protection visa to the applicant.  The Tribunal's reasons for decision comprise some eleven pages and on their face appear to be a comprehensive assessment of the applicant's claims to refugee status in accordance with authority and with the requirements of the Migration Act 1958 (“the Act”).  The application for review filed on 2 December 1998 does not identify grounds in the terms set out in s 476(1) of the Act. 

2                     At the first directions hearing in the matter the applicant did not appear, but a Mr Raymond Reyes-Gonzalez sought leave to appear on his behalf.  In any event, on that occasion directions were given for the filing of evidence and for the exchange of submissions ahead of the hearing today.  The respondent filed a selection of relevant documents.  The applicant filed no affidavits.  However on 10 March a document described as a submission was filed, allegedly on behalf of the applicant.  This document had apparently been prepared by an organisation describing itself as L’Amer-Aussies MRF (Multinational Refugees Foundation) Inc, which is an organisation I gather with which Mr Reyes-Gonzalez is associated. 

3                     At the hearing of the matter today, the applicant appeared in person and was unrepresented by a lawyer.  An interpreter in the Spanish language was present and interpreted what I said and what the solicitor for the respondent said during the course of the hearing.  Mr Reyes-Gonzalez again sought leave to appear for the applicant.  He informed me that he is not a solicitor or barrister nor a migration agent.  His application to appear was not opposed by the respondent, although some doubt was expressed by the solicitor on behalf of the respondent whether Mr Reyes-Gonzalez was likely to assist the Court.  With considerable hesitation, I permitted Mr Reyes-Gonzalez to sit at the bar table and to address the Court after anything the applicant himself might wish to say.  The applicant in fact wished to say nothing.  He confirmed to me that he had read the submissions filed on his behalf by Mr Reyes-Gonzalez’s organisation and the submissions filed by the solicitor for the respondent. 

4                     Mr Reyes-Gonzalez then addressed the Court.  It regrettably became quite apparent that he had no concept of the limited basis upon which this Court might intervene in judicial review proceedings under Part 8 of the Act.  The submission that he filed indicated, in what was described as a preamble in paragraph 1, that the applicant decided not to file and serve an affidavit, but that he would rely on his declaration given to the Tribunal on 15 October 1999.  Much of the submission purports to add factual material to the material that was before the Tribunal and indeed much of that material postdates the decision of the Tribunal itself.  Mr Reyes-Gonzalez referred to some of this material in paragraphs 25 to 32 of the submission and I had to indicate to him that that was not evidence before the Court.  Again, it is regrettable that Mr Reyes-Gonzalez evidently had no concept of the limited basis upon which evidence can be received in judicial review proceedings.

5                     Accordingly, for all practical purposes, the applicant must be viewed as being a person who appears here today unrepresented.  This imposes upon the Court the invidious task of assessing for itself, assisted by the natural fairness exhibited by legal representatives for the respondent, whether there is some reviewable basis of error in the Tribunal's decision.  I can perceive none. 

6                     I will place with the papers a copy of the submissions dated 14 March 1999 prepared by the solicitor for the respondent.  I have read those submissions carefully and looked at the references in the relevant documents to which they refer.  The submissions seem to me to be a fair summary of those documents.  I accept the submissions of the respondent, as set out clearly from paragraph 16.  It follows therefore that I accept the submission made ultimately on behalf of the respondent.  Accordingly, the application is dismissed with costs.

Associate:

Dated:              18 March 1999