FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NADJ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 700
MIGRATION – application for review of RRT decision – whether error by RRT – questions of fact – safe relocation within applicant’s home country – privative clause
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 474
NADJ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
N 153 OF 2002
TAMBERLIN J
SYDNEY
31 MAY 2002
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY |
N 153 OF 2002 |
|
BETWEEN: |
NADJ APPLICANT
|
|
AND: |
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
|
|
TAMBERLIN J |
|
|
DATE OF ORDER: |
31 MAY 2002 |
|
WHERE MADE: |
SYDNEY |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application for review is dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of this application.
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 |
N 153 OF 2002 |
|
BETWEEN: |
NADJ APPLICANT
|
|
AND: |
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
|
|
JUDGE: |
TAMBERLIN J |
|
DATE: |
31 MAY 2002 |
|
PLACE: |
SYDNEY |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 In this matter I have considered the submissions of the applicant and as I explained to the applicant during the course of the hearing, the matters on which the Refugee Review Tribunal (“The Tribunal”) relied in its decision and in respect of which the applicant said there were errors, raise only questions of fact. There was extensive material before the Tribunal relating to the applicant’s claims generally and in relation to the question of relocation. Some of this material was adverted to as supporting the finding of the Tribunal that it was possible for the applicant to relocate to another part of India, particularly having regard to his age, his education and his ability to speak two of India's main languages.
2 In those circumstances it seems to me that no reviewable error has been made out. Reference has been made to the operation of the privative clause under s 474 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) but I am satisfied that the errors which have been alleged in the present case come within the protection given by that provision, with the consequence that it operates to protect the decision from invalidity based on the type of error alleged to have been made in this case. It is not necessary for me to decide this in the present case.
3 Accordingly, the order of the Court is that the application for review of the decision of the Tribunal should be refused and the applicant should pay the costs of the respondent according to normal principles.
|
I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Tamberlin. |
Associate:
Dated: 31 May 2002
|
The Applicant was self represented. |
|
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent: |
R Bromwich |
|
|
|
|
Solicitor for the Respondent: |
Blake Dawson Waldron |
|
|
|
|
Date of Hearing: |
31 May 2002 |
|
|
|
|
Date of Judgment: |
31 May 2002 |
