Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Majeed v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 470
IRFAN MAJEED v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
V 11/99
RYAN J
MELBOURNE
12 APRIL 2000
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 11 of 1999
BETWEEN: IRFAN MAJEED
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: RYAN J
DATE OF ORDER: 12 APRIL 2000
WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE
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
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 11 of 1999
BETWEEN: IRFAN MAJEED
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: RYAN J
DATE: 12 APRIL 2000
PLACE: MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This was an application to set aside a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"), made on 3 December 1998 affirming the decision of the respondent's delegate not to grant the applicant a protection visa, on the grounds that it, like the Minister's delegate, was not satisfied that he is a refugee. 2 A decision of the Tribunal may be reviewed under Part 8 of the Migration Act 1958 ("the Act"), and that review is restricted to consideration of the grounds in s 476, which is in these terms: "(1) Subject to subsection (2), application may be made for review by the Federal Court of a judicially-reviewable decision on any one or more of the following grounds: (a) that procedures that were required by this Act or the regulations to be observed in connection with the making of the decision were not observed; (b) that the person who purported to make the decision did not have jurisdiction to make the decision; (c) that the decision was not authorised by this Act or the regulations; (d) that the decision was an improper exercise of the power conferred by this Act or the regulations; (e) that the decision involved an error of law, being an error involving an incorrect interpretation of the applicable law or an incorrect application of the law to the facts as found by the person who made the decision, whether or not the error appears on the record of the decision; (f) that the decision was induced or affected by fraud or by actual bias; (g) that there was no evidence or other material to justify the making of the decision. (2) The following are not grounds upon which an application may be made under subsection (1): (a) that a breach of the rules of natural justice occurred in connection with the making of the decision; (b) that the decision involved an exercise of a power that is so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have so exercised the power.
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