Hossen v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 363

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Hossen v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs

[2000] FCA 363

HOSSEN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

W 135 of 1999

CARR J

27 MARCH 2000

PERTH

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY W 135 OF 1999

BETWEEN: KAMAL HOSSEN

Applicant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Respondent

JUDGE: CARR J

DATE OF ORDER: 27 MARCH 2000

WHERE MADE: PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal, made on 15 November 1999, be set aside. 2. The matter be remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal for re-hearing, with or without new evidence, 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

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY W 135 OF 1999

BETWEEN: KAMAL HOSSEN

Applicant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Respondent

JUDGE: CARR J

DATE: 27 MARCH 2000

PLACE: PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction 1 This is an application for an order of review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal, made on 15 November 1999, by which the Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the respondent not to grant a protection visa to the applicant. The applicant, who is a citizen of Bangladesh, arrived in Australia on 20 May 1999. On 17 June 1999 he lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs ("the Department"). On 11 August 1999 a delegate of the respondent refused to grant the applicant a protection visa and on 13 August 1999 the applicant sought review of that decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal.

Application for an Order of Review 2 The applicant was unrepresented. His application is in a form common to several other applications recently lodged by applicants from the Port Hedland Detention Centre. The grounds of the application were stated as follows: "(a) The decision involved an error of law, being an error involving the incorrect interpretation of the applicable law or an incorrect application of the law to the facts as found by the Tribunal or both. (b) The decision involved an error in that the Tribunal made findings of fact upon which its decision was based that were not rationally supported by probative evidence and it failed to rationally consider the probative evidence that was before it."