Federal Court of Australia
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NG613 of 1998
BETWEEN: CAROLINE DE LEON
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent
JUDGE: HELY J
DATE OF ORDER: 4 DECEMBER 1998
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 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 NG613 of 1998
BETWEEN: CAROLINE DE LEON
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent
JUDGE: HELY J
DATE: 4 DECEMBER 1998
PLACE: SYDNEY
EXTEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT HELY J: The applicant is a citizen of the Philippines. On 11 October 1997, she arrived in Australia. On 5 November 1997 she made an application for a protection visa. The grounds on which she made that application were that she was due to marry; shortly prior to the date fixed for the wedding she discovered that her intended husband was a member of the New Peoples Army. She also discovered that he had been physically violent towards his previous female partner. They had an argument and he threatened to kill her. Australian relatives helped Ms De Leon to come to this country, and she came here because she was in fear of her former boyfriend. On 28 May 1998, the Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Minister's delegate not to grant a protection visa. In substance, the grounds on which the Tribunal came to that conclusion were two; first, the difficulties which the applicant had with her former boyfriend appeared to arise from a breakdown in their personal relationship and was not motivated by the applicant's race, her religion, her membership of a particular social group or political opinion. Second, her former boyfriend had no more than a peripheral link with the New Peoples Army and the New Peoples Army had no interest in harming her. The application for an order for review does not disclose any detailed basis on which it is contented that the Tribunal fell into error, nor was Ms De Leon able to point me to any reviewable error which had been committed on the part of the Tribunal. It is clear that I have no authority to determine whether a protection visa or any other form of visa should issue to Ms De Leon. All that I can do is to determine whether the decision of the Tribunal is reviewable on one of the limited grounds referred to in s 476 of the Migration Act. Notwithstanding the fact that Ms De Leon has not been able to point to any such ground, I have read the file for myself in order to see whether I could discover any error on the part of the Tribunal which would enliven the jurisdiction of this Court to review its determination. Having done so I cannot find any error, let alone a reviewable error in terms of s 476 of the Migration Act, in the decision of the Tribunal. The findings which the Tribunal made were open to it on the materials before it, Ram v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1995) 57 FCR 565 at 568, confirms that if harmful acts are done purely on an individual basis because of what the individual has done or may do or possesses, the application of the convention is not attracted. Accordingly, I cannot find any basis on which the relief which Ms De Leon seeks can be granted and the application for an order for review is dismissed.
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