Chand, Ravind v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs [1997] FCA 138

Federal Court of Australia

Document text

CATCHWORDS MIGRATION - Whether Refugee Review Tribunal erred in law by incorrectly applying the law to the facts as found - internal relocation - no error of law disclosed Migration Act 1958 (Cth) Syan v Refugee Review Tribunal (1995) 61 FCR 284 Randhawa v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 52 FCR 437 No. NG 300 of 1996 RAVIND CHAND v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS MOORE J SYDNEY 7 MARCH 1997

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. NG 300 of 1996 ) GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: RAVIND CHAND Applicant AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS Respondent JUDGE: Moore J PLACE: Sydney DATE: 7 March 1997 ORDER OF THE COURT THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application is dismissed with costs. 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 ) No. NG 300 of 1996 ) GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: RAVIND CHAND Applicant AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS Respondent JUDGE: Moore J PLACE: Sydney DATE: 7 March 1997 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT This is an application by Ravind Chand ("the applicant") for the review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") of 19 March 1996. The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs on 30 June 1995 refusing to grant a protection visa to the applicant. The applicant had made his initial application on 10 February 1992. It is unnecessary to detail the legislative framework within which the decision was made as the issue raised in these proceedings is a narrow one. It was common ground that it was necessary for the Tribunal to consider whether the applicant was a refugee as defined in the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. Article A(2) of the Convention, as amended, defines a refugee as any person who: "owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it."

Read full text →

Official source

We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.

Not checked yet

Last checked with source on —

Open official source

Checking whether the official page can be embedded…

Study brief

Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.

Unknown

No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.

You've got 21 of 22 free Acts left this visit. Sign up anytime for Facts, Related, and study briefs too.

Document text

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. NG 300 of 1996 ) GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: RAVIND CHAND Applicant AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS Respondent JUDGE: Moore J PLACE: Sydney DATE: 7 March 1997 ORDER OF THE COURT THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application is dismissed with costs. 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 ) No. NG 300 of 1996 ) GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: RAVIND CHAND Applicant AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS Respondent JUDGE: Moore J PLACE: Sydney DATE: 7 March 1997 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT This is an application by Ravind Chand ("the applicant") for the review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") of 19 March 1996. The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs on 30 June 1995 refusing to grant a protection visa to the applicant. The applicant had made his initial application on 10 February 1992. It is unnecessary to detail the legislative framework within which the decision was made as the issue raised in these proceedings is a narrow one. It was common ground that it was necessary for the Tribunal to consider whether the applicant was a refugee as defined in the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. Article A(2) of the Convention, as amended, defines a refugee as any person who: "owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it."

Read full text →