Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Hossain v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 957
MIGRATION – application for judicial review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal affirming decision not to grant applicant protection visa – finding that applicant not a homosexual – whether failure to put to applicant that he was not a homosexual – whether error of law Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 420, 476(1)(a), 476(1)(e)
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu (1999) 162 ALR 577 applied Chan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1989) 169 CLR 379 cited
ABUL HOSSAIN v THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
NG 1166 OF 1998
LEHANE J
14 JULY 1999
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NG 1166 OF 1998
BETWEEN: ABUL HOSSAIN
Applicant
AND: THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent
JUDGE: LEHANE J
DATE OF ORDER: 14 JULY 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 1166 OF 1998
BETWEEN: ABUL HOSSAIN
Applicant
AND: THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent
JUDGE: LEHANE J
DATE: 14 JULY 1999
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal dated 29 September 1998, by which the Tribunal affirmed a decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The grounds on which the applicant relies are those provided in s 176(1)(a) and (e) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). He claims that procedures required by the Migration Act to be observed in connection with the making of the decision were not observed and that the decision involved an error of law, being an error of law involving an incorrect interpretation of the applicable law or an incorrect interpretation of the applicable law to the facts as found by the Tribunal. The application propounds a third ground (there was no evidence or other material to justify the making of the decision) but no submissions were made in support of that ground and it need not be considered further.
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