Federal Court of Australia
federal court of australia
MIGRATION – whether case notes of decision making process form part of reasoning of the decision maker – meaning of "particular fact" in s 476(4)(b) – whether s 56 imposes duty on Minister to seek further information – whether failure to comply with s 66(2)(a) is a ground of review under s 476(1)(a). Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 31(1), 31(3), 31(5), 56, 66(2)(a), 476(1)(a), 476(1)(e), 476(1)(g), 476(2), 476(4)(b)
Adams v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1998) 48 ALD 280, cited Xiang Sheng Li v Refugee Review Tribunal (1996) 45 ALD 193, cited Queen v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Ex parte Fayed [1997] 1 All ER 228, distinguished Tam Anh Bui v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mansfield J, 9 April 1998, unreported), followed Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 153 ALR 490, cited ZELJANA VELMIR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS NG 188 of 1998 EMMETT J SYDNEY 9 JULY 1998
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NG 188 of 1998
BETWEEN: ZELJANA VELMIR
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent
JUDGE: EMMETT J
DATE: 9 JULY 1998
PLACE: SYDNEY
the court orders that:
1. The application be 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 NG 188 of 1998
BETWEEN: ZELJANA VELMIR
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent
JUDGE: EMMETT J
DATE: 9 JULY 1998
PLACE: SYDNEY
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT HIS HONOUR: Zeljana Velmir ("the Applicant") applied for a permanent visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act") on refugee or humanitarian grounds. The application was for a visa in subclass 202 entitled Global Special Humanitarian Visa. On 27 January 1998 the application was refused by an officer of the Migration Office in the Australian Embassy in Vienna. The Applicant has now brought proceedings in this Court for a review of the decision to refuse to grant the visa. It is common ground that the decision is a "judicially reviewable decision" within the meaning of section 475(1) of the Act. The only grounds for review of such a decision are those specified in section 476(1) of the Act. Three of those grounds are relied upon as follows: (a) that procedures that were required by the Act to be observed in connection with the making of the decision were not observed; (e) the decision involved an error of law, being an error involving an incorrect interpretation of the applicable law; or (g) there was no evidence or other material to justify the making of the decision. I shall deal with each of the grounds separately.
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.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
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.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate