Specialist in Australian Immigration, Migration Consultant and Online Australian Visa Assessment Service.
Australian Immigration Specialists - Australian Immigration Consultants Online Australian Visa Assessments for immigration to Australia
  Research Home

Categories
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Federal Court
Federal Magistrates Court
Full Federal Court
High Court
Migration Review Tribunal
Other Jurisdictions
Refugee Review Tribunal
Recently Added
Re Patterson; Ex parte Taylor [2001] HCA 51 (6 September 2001)
Singh v Commonwealth of Australia [2004] HCA 43 (9 September 2004)
Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal; Lie v Refugee Review Tribunal [2002] HCA 30

"Use the Migration Specialists that migration agents use"
Cases

1 This is an appeal from a decision of Wilcox J, rejecting the appellants' application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") affirming a decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister to refuse protection visas to six persons of Bangladesh nationality. The relevant facts and the grounds on which the appellants sought review of the Tribunal's decision are set out in the reasons of the trial judge: see NAGW v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] FCA 272. (Those reasons can be found on the Federal Court's website: www.fedcourt.gov.au.)

NAGW v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

NAGW v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 173 (12 August 2003)
Last Updated: 12 August 2003


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NAGW v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs

[2003] FCAFC 173


NAGW v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

N 467 of 2003

BLACK CJ, HEEREY AND FINN JJ

SYDNEY

12 AUGUST 2003

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA



NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 467 OF 2003




BETWEEN:
NAGW

FIRST APPELLANT

NAGX

SECOND APPELLANT

NAGY

THIRD APPELLANT

NAGZ

FOURTH APPELLANT

NAHA

FIFTH APPELLANT

NAHB

SIXTH APPELLANT


AND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT


JUDGES:
BLACK CJ, HEEREY AND FINN JJ


DATE OF ORDER:
12 AUGUST 2003


WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY




THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The first and fourth appellants pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

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 467 OF 2003




BETWEEN:
NAGW

FIRST APPELLANT

NAGX

SECOND APPELLANT

NAGY

THIRD APPELLANT

NAGZ

FOURTH APPELLANT

NAHA

FIFTH APPELLANT

NAHB

SIXTH APPELLANT


AND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT




JUDGES:
BLACK CJ, HEEREY AND FINN JJ


DATE:
12 AUGUST 2003


PLACE:
SYDNEY





REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT:

1 This is an appeal from a decision of Wilcox J, rejecting the appellants' application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") affirming a decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister to refuse protection visas to six persons of Bangladesh nationality. The relevant facts and the grounds on which the appellants sought review of the Tribunal's decision are set out in the reasons of the trial judge: see NAGW v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] FCA 272. (Those reasons can be found on the Federal Court's website: www.fedcourt.gov.au.)

2 The notice of appeal lists four grounds of appeal, which assert that the primary judge failed to find error of law, jurisdictional error and procedural fairness. The notice of appeal seems to be directed towards the conclusion that the Tribunal should have reached a decision favourable to the appellants.

3 The appellants were directed to file written submissions, in support of the appeal, 14 days prior to the hearing. They have not done so.

4 We have read the reasons of the learned primary judge. His Honour considered that nothing had been put to the Court that founded an argument that there had been jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal. His Honour concluded that, as there was no jurisdictional error, he had no option but to dismiss the application. There is nothing before us to cast any doubt upon the correctness of his Honour's reasons and the appeal must be dismissed.

5 The respondent's counsel indicated at the hearing that he only sought costs against the adult appellants. The first and fourth appellants must pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Chief Justice Black, their Honours Justice Heerey and Justice Finn.




Associate:

Dated: 12 August 2003

Counsel for the Appellants:
The first appellant appeared in person on behalf of all appellants






Counsel for the Respondent:
Mr J Smith






Solicitor for the Respondent:
Sparke Helmore






Date of Hearing:
12 August 2003






Date of Judgment:
12 August 2003


Australia Immigration Consultants and Online Australia Visa Assessments for immigration to Australia