Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Thangavel v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 53
MIGRATION – application for a protection visa – whether reasons of Refugee Review Tribunal failed to set out findings on questions of material fact – whether failure to give reasons Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 430, 476(1)(a) Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259, followed KUMARESAN THANGAVEL v THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS NO. N631 OF 1999 O'CONNOR J 4 FEBRUARY 2000 SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N631 OF 1999
BETWEEN: KUMARESAN THANGAVEL
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: O'CONNOR J
DATE OF ORDER: 4 FEBRUARY 2000
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application be allowed with costs.
2. The decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal be set aside.
3. The matter be remitted to the Refuge Review Tribunal for determination in accordance with law.
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 N631 OF 1999
BETWEEN: KUMARESAN THANGAVEL
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: O'CONNOR J
DATE: 4 FEBRUARY 2000
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application to review the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") of 28 May 1999. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs refusing to grant the applicant a protection visa. 2 The grounds of the application relied on at the hearing of the matter were that: 1. Procedures that were required by the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to be observed in connection with the making of the Tribunal decision were not observed in that the Tribunal failed to produce a statement in accordance with s 430 and therefore s 476(1)(a); and 2. The Tribunal failed to make material findings of fact as to what might happen to the applicant on his return to Sri Lanka; failed to give reasons as to why what might happen to the applicant would not constitute persecution; failed to give reasons as to why what might happen to the applicant would or would not be for a Convention reason.
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