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

MIGRATION - Review of decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal affirming a decision of a delegate of the Minister refusing to grant a protection visa - no grounds for review advanced - application dismissed.

NALN v Minister for Immigration [2002] FMCA 203 (22 August 2002)

NALN v Minister for Immigration [2002] FMCA 203 (22 August 2002)
Last Updated: 24 September 2002

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NALN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION
[2002] FMCA 203



MIGRATION - Review of decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal affirming a decision of a delegate of the Minister refusing to grant a protection visa - no grounds for review advanced - application dismissed.

Applicant:
NALN



Respondent:


MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS



File No:


SZ509 of 2002



Delivered on:


22 August 2002



Delivered at:


Sydney



Hearing Date:


22 August 2002



Judgment of:


Driver FM



REPRESENTATION

Applicant appeared in person






Solicitors for the Respondent:


Ms B Rayment

Sparke Helmore



ORDERS

(1) Application dismissed.

(2) Applicant to pay respondent's costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application, fixed at $2,500.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES

COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT

SYDNEY


SZ509 of 2002

NALN


Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL

& INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS




Respondent


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. I have before me an application to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the RRT") made on 23 April 2002 affirming a decision of the delegate of the respondent Minister to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa. The background circumstances are accurately set out in paragraphs one, two, three, four, five, six and seven of the written submissions prepared on behalf of the Minister.

2. I adopt that statement of background facts as accurate for the purposes of these proceedings.

3. The applicant provided no grounds for his application for review but he provided an affidavit made on 17 June 2002 in support of his application. The applicant also elaborated on that affidavit orally before me today. In essence, the applicant experienced problems when he came to Australia with some other people ostensibly for the purposes of making a movie. Money was collected from individuals ostensibly for the purposes of the movie but the money has apparently been lost and the movie has not been made.

4. This has caused problems for the applicant and he has been afraid to return to India. The RRT noted the circumstances put forward by the applicant but concluded, correctly in my view, that the applicant did not fear persecution for a reason recognised in the Refugees Convention. The applicant has admitted to me that he is not seeking refugee status but rather, that he is simply seeking to stay in Australia for a period until it is safe for him to return to India.

5. To this point it seems that the applicant has achieved his objective. It is, however, obvious that there is no basis on which I could disturb the decision of the RRT. Therefore I must dismiss the application.

6. Ms Rayment, on behalf of the Minister, has estimated that the costs incurred by the Minister in these proceedings is in the order of $3,000. In my view, it is appropriate in proceedings of this nature that costs be awarded on a party/party basis which indicates an award of costs of a somewhat lesser amount. My usual practice is to fix the amount of costs to be award in migration proceedings. I will order that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of this application which I fix in the amount of $2,500.

7. In making that order I note that Ms Rayment has indicated for the record that in view of the admissions made by the applicant in these proceedings, if there are further proceedings in respect of the application for a Protection Visa, it is likely that the Minister would seek costs on an indemnity basis for any further legal expenses incurred.


I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Driver FM

Associate:

Date: 16 September 2002
Australia Immigration Consultants and Online Australia Visa Assessments for immigration to Australia