S229 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh. On 21 September 1998, the applicant lodged an application for a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ('the Act'). On 9 November 1998, a delegate of the first respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, refused the application. On 9 December 1998, the applicant applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') for review of the delegate's decision. On 15 March 2000, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision. 2 The applicant commenced a proceeding in the High Court of Australia by filing a draft order nisi on 27 May 2003, together with an affidavit sworn on that date. The matter was remitted to this Court pursuant to an order of the High Court following the decision of Lie v Refugee Review Tribunal [2002] HCA 30. 3 On 12 November 2004, the District Registrar of the Federal Court wrote to the applicant inviting him to make written submissions on the question of whether there is an arguable case for the grant of the relief claimed by the draft order nisi in the material before the Court. There has been no response to that letter. In the circumstances, it is appropriate that the application for an Order nisi be dealt with without any oral hearing or argument and for Order 51A rule 5(1) of the Federal Court Rules to be dispensed with (see Applicant s195 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2005] FCA 1571). 4 The draft order nisi did not state any ground and is therefore incapable of attracting any relief. The applicant's affidavit does not provide any grounds for review or any particulars. 5 On an application such as this, for orders requiring the respondents to show cause why final relief should not be granted, the purpose of any affidavit in support is to provide material showing that there is at least an arguable case for the grant of the final relief claimed. However, the material must be more than mere pleading or assertion of the right to such relief. The material must contain some evidence of facts that would support the grant of the relief claimed. In the context of the relief claimed by the present applicant, there should be material that would show that it is at least arguable that the Tribunal fell into jurisdictional error in making the Decision, such that orders would be made to quash the Decision and to restrain the Minister from acting on the Decision. The material presently before the Court does not disclose an arguable case, in that sense. I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett.