FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Applicant S117 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1495
MIGRATION LAW – application for leave to appeal dismissed
NSD 1647 OF 2006
GYLES J
1 NOVEMBER 2006
SYDNEY
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY |
NSD 1647 OF 2006 |
|
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
BETWEEN: |
APPLICANT S117 OF 2003 Applicant
|
|
AND: |
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent
|
|
GYLES J |
|
|
DATE OF ORDER: |
1 NOVEMBER 2006 |
|
WHERE MADE: |
SYDNEY |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the costs of the first respondent.
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 |
NSD 1647 OF 2006 |
|
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
BETWEEN: |
APPLICANT S117 OF 2003 Applicant
|
|
AND: |
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS First Respondent
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent
|
|
JUDGE: |
GYLES J |
|
DATE: |
1 NOVEMBER 2006 |
|
PLACE: |
SYDNEY |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 This is an application for leave to appeal from the decision given on 8 August 2006 by Barnes FM, who declined to make an order nisi on the basis that no arguable case had been established (Applicant S117/2005 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs & Anor [2006] FMCA 1169). The application for leave to appeal from that decision, and the affidavit in support, identified very general grounds of attack upon that decision, but do not tie those grounds back to any part of the reasons of the learned Federal Magistrate. Unsupported by such a reference, those grounds, in themselves, are quite meaningless.
2 I have explained the position to the applicant and he has, quite frankly, said that he is unable to follow the technical legal aspects of this matter. What he is seeking is another tribunal to properly assess his factual claims, and he would like more time as well. As I have indicated to him, the role of this Court is simply to correct errors in the approach of the Federal Magistrates Court, not to deal directly with the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal.
3 This matter has a long history, which I need not go into, but, as I have explained to the applicant, in the absence of his ability to raise an arguable ground of appeal from the learned Federal Magistrate’s decision, I am bound to dismiss his application, which I do. The applicant is to pay the costs of the first 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: 14 November 2006
|
|
The Applicant appeared in person |
|
|
|
|
Solicitor for the First Respondent: |
Mr J Wright of Sparke Helmore |
|
|
|
|
|
The Second Respondent submitted |
|
Date of Hearing: |
1 November 2006 |
|
|
|
|
Date of Judgment: |
1 November 2006 |
