Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Aliparo v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 79
MIGRATION - appeal from Refugee Review Tribunal ("RRT") decision refusing refugee status – whether decision involved an error of law involving an incorrect interpretation of the applicable law or an incorrect application of the facts as found by the RRT – whether the applicant was being persecuted because of her husband's political opinions – whether the applicant was being persecuted as a member of a "social group" – whether the applicant was being persecuted because she feared the case against her husband would be lost because of the "influence" of those charged Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 476(1)(e) Ram v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (1995) 57 FCR 565, applied Applicant A v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (1996-7) 142 ALR 331, cited EVA SANDIG ALIPARO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS NG 624 of 1998 O'CONNOR J SYDNEY 12 FEBRUARY 1999
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NG 624 OF 1998
BETWEEN: EVA SANDIG ALIPARO
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent
JUDGE: O'CONNOR J
DATE OF ORDER: 12 FEBRUARY 1999
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 624 OF 1998
BETWEEN: EVA SANDIG ALIPARO
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent
JUDGE: O'CONNOR J
DATE: 12 FEBRUARY 1999
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application for the review of a decision of a member of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") dated 3 June 1998 affirming the decision of the delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs not to grant a protection visa. 2 The grounds (as stated in the applicant's handwritten application) are: (i) That the applicant is persecuted, threatened and harassed because her husband witnessed and then decided to expose the kidnapping of innocent citizens by high ranking officials in the Philippines. (ii) That the applicant and her husband are persecuted because of their political opinion. (iii) That the applicant and her husband have a right to be protected by the leaders assigned to lead and govern the security and human rights of the people in their country. (iv) That the Tribunal did not correctly apply the law on refugees.
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