VDAE v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs[2003] FCAFC 123

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VDAE v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 123 MIGRATION – possession of sensitive political information – imputed political opinion - whether well founded fear of persecution - requirement to take evidence into account VDAE, VDAF AND VDAG v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFAIRS V 4 of 2003 FRENCH, von DOUSSA and MARSHALL JJ 5 JUNE 2003 MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 4 OF 2003

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE COURT

BETWEEN: VDAE

FIRST APPELLANT

VDAF

SECOND APPELLANT

VDAG

THIRD APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGES: FRENCH, von DOUSSA and MARSHALL JJ

DATE OF ORDER: 5 JUNE 2003

WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The 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

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 4 OF 2003

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE COURT

BETWEEN: VDAE

FIRST APPELLANT

VDAF

SECOND APPELLANT

VDAG

THIRD APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGES: FRENCH, von DOUSSA and MARSHALL JJ

DATE: 5 JUNE 2003

PLACE: MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT 1 This is an appeal from the judgment of a judge of the Court ("the primary judge") in which his Honour dismissed an application by the appellants for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the RRT"). 2 The appellants contend that the issue for determination in the appeal is whether the RRT fell into jurisdictional error by failing to deal with an allegedly essential element of the claims made by the appellants in their application for a protection visa. This contention was put to the primary judge but rejected. The primary judge considered that on a fair reading, the decision of the RRT included non-acceptance of evidence that the appellants alleged was not dealt with by the RRT.