Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA MIGRATION - appeal from Refugee Review Tribunal ("RRT") decision refusing protection visa – whether RRT made legal error by failing to find that applicant was a national of Jordan before considering the applicant's status in relation to Jordan – whether applicant's fear that Australian intelligence agency may have informed Jordanian authorities of contact made with applicant well founded – whether failure to make material findings amounts to a failure to act according to substantial justice and merits of the case Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 420, 430(1)(c), 476(1)(a), 476(1)(e), 476(1)(g), 476(2), 476(4)(b) Migration Regulations (Cth) Eshetu v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1997) 71 FCR 300, cited Sun Zhan Qui v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1998) 151 ALR 505, cited
RA'ED F HAWWASH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS NG 98 of 1998 O'CONNOR J SYDNEY
7 DECEMBER 1998
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NG 98 of 1998
BETWEEN: RA'ED F HAWWASH
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent
JUDGE: O'CONNOR j
DATE OF ORDER: 7 DECEMBER 1998
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 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 98 of 1998
BETWEEN: RA'ED F HAWWASH
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent
JUDGE: O'CONNOR j
DATE: 7 DECEMBER 1998
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT This is an application for the review of a decision of a member of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") dated 16 January 1998 affirming the decision of the delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs not to grant a protection visa. On 7 May 1998 the applicant filed an amended application pursuant to orders made by Lehane J on 4 May 1998. At the hearing of this matter on 24 November 1998, the applicant filed in court another amended application. No objection to this was taken and the amendment was allowed. The grounds of this amended application are: 1. That the decision involved an error of law being an error involving an incorrect interpretation of the applicable law.
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