Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
IMMIGRATION - review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal – no point of general principle Migration Act 1967 (Cth), s 476
WILSON LUNARDI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS NG 190 of 1998 MADGWICK J SYDNEY 27 AUGUST 1998
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY G 190 of 1998
BETWEEN: Wilson Lunardi
Applicant
AND: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Respondent
JUDGE: MADGWICK J
DATE OF ORDER: 27 AUGUST 1998
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
SHORT MINUTES OF ORDERS
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application is dismissed.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY G 190 of 1998
BETWEEN: Wilson Lunardi
Applicant
AND: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Respondent
JUDGE: MADGWICK J
DATE: 27 AUGUST 1998
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT HIS HONOUR: The applicant is a 28 year old national of Indonesia of Chinese ethnicity. From 1986 to 1994, he was employed in Indonesia as a courier. He arrived in Australia on 16 January 1995 on a valid passport. On 25 October 1996 he made an application for a protection visa to the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. On 30 April 1997 the applicant was notified by a delegate of the Minister that his application had been refused, on the basis that he did not meet the criterion for a protection visa and thus was not a person to whom Australia owed protection obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol ("the Convention"). On 19 May 1997 he applied for a review of the primary decision to the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). On 12 February 1998 the applicant appeared before the Tribunal and gave evidence. On the same day the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The applicant now seeks a review of the Tribunal's decision, although the applicant has not stated the grounds upon which the review is sought. The applicant is not represented by legal counsel and does not speak English, although he has been assisted by an interpreter. The applicant was, one may say of course, unable to submit to me any legal basis upon which the review should proceed. In the circumstances, I have considered the matter for myself to try to determine whether the Tribunal has made any error of law. The unsatisfactoriness of this hardly needs to be stressed, but in a situation of governmental parsimony as to legal aid and where considerations of "human fate", in a phrase of Toohey J's, are involved, it seems to me that humanity dictates that I so proceed.
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