O v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 265

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

"O" v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 265

MIGRATION – application for protection visa – claim of well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of nationality and political opinion – relocation – whether Tribunal had based its decision on non-existent fact – whether the Tribunal made an error of law. Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 430, 476

Xu v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 1741, cited Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf [1999] FCA 1681, cited Li Shi Ping and Anor v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 35 ALD 225, considered Somaghi v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1991) 31 FCR 100, considered Mohammed v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 868, distinguished "O" v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS N 1288 OF 1999 SUNDBERG, KATZ and HELY JJ 13 MARCH 2000 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 1288 OF 1999

BETWEEN: "O"

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGES: SUNDBERG, KATZ and HELY JJ

DATE OF ORDER: 13 MARCH 2000

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal. 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 N 1288 OF 1999

BETWEEN: "O"

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGES: SUNDBERG, KATZ and HELY JJ

DATE: 13 MARCH 2000

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

BACKGROUND 1 The appellant is a Kurdish Iranian. He arrived in Australia without a passport on 1 May 1999 and has since been held in detention. On 10 May 1999 he applied for a protection visa. His application was refused by a delegate of the respondent, and that refusal was upheld by the Refugee Review Tribunal. His application for review of the Tribunal's decision was dismissed by Moore J, and this appeal is from that decision.