Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Rajadurai v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 125
MIGRATION – Refugee status – Whether well-founded fear of persecution – Finding that applicant did not have well-founded fear of persecution – Whether finding required as to applicant's subjective fear of persecution. Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 36, 65, 476. Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), reg 866.221. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, Art 1A(2). Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559, cited. Emiantor v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (1997) 48 ALD 635, cited. Chan v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (1989) 169 CLR 379, cited. Emiantor v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs, unreported, 20 July 1998 (Olney, Sundberg & Marshall JJ), cited.
RAJADURAI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS NG 1221 of 1998 JUDGE: SACKVILLE J PLACE: SYDNEY DATE: 23 FEBRUARY 1999
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NG 1221 OF 1998
BETWEEN: NAGULAN RAJADURAI
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent
JUDGE: SACKVILLE J
DATE OF ORDER: 23 FEBRUARY 1999
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's 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 1221 OF 1998
BETWEEN: NAGULAN RAJADURAI
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent
JUDGE: SACKVILLE J
DATE: 23 FEBRUARY 1999
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The Application 1 This is an application, pursuant to s 476(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("RRT") made on 14 October 1998. The RRT affirmed a decision made by a delegate of the Minister on 6 August 1998, refusing to grant the applicant a protection visa. According to the amended application, the applicant relies on s 476(1)(a) of the Migration Act (failure to observe procedures required to be observed in connection with the making of the decision) and s 476(1)(e) (an error of law involving the incorrect interpretation of the applicable law or an incorrect application of the law to the facts as found by the RRT).
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