Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Tirane v Minister for Immigration & Multicutural Affairs [1999] FCA 207 MIGRATION – credibility – whether applicant given adequate opportunity to respond to evidential findings – whether reliance can be placed on indications by Tribunal – whether unfair procedure – whether well-founded fear of persecution Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 420, s 476(1)(a) & (e) Eshetu v MIMA [1997] 71 FCR 300 Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550 Somaghi v MILGEA (1991) 102 ALR 339 Meadows v MIMA (unreported, 23 December 1998, Einfeld, von Doussa and Merkel JJ,) RACHID TIRANE v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS NG 1337 OF 1998
DOWSETT J 10 MARCH 1999 SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NG 1337 OF 1998
BETWEEN: RACHID TIRANE
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent
JUDGE: DOWSETT J
DATE OF ORDER: 10 MARCH 1999
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application.. 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 1337 OF 1998
BETWEEN: RACHID TIRANE
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent
JUDGE: DOWSETT J
DATE: 10 MARCH 1999
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application pursuant to s. 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal affirming the respondent's refusal to grant the applicant a Protection Visa. 2 The applicant is a citizen of Algeria. He arrived in Australia on 21 August 1998 with his sister, her husband and two children. At the airport, before passing through the Immigration and Customs checkpoints, he entered a toilet. A razor blade was later found in a cubicle. The applicant admitted that he had used this blade to slash all five passports and then flushed them down the toilet. This was done to avoid their being sent back to Algeria. He was detained and interviewed. Statements made by the applicant to the Immigration Inspector at the time were treated as important in rejecting his application.
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