Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Akand v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 626
IMMIGRATION – application for review of Refugee Review Tribunal – Tribunal officer refused to consider application to present further material to the Tribunal member because a decision had been signed and dated by Tribunal Member – Tribunal officer asserted that the Tribunal was functus officio – desirability of modification of Tribunal's procedures to reflect reasoning in Semunigus
Semunigus v Minister for Immigration [1999] FCA 240, considered MOHAMMED SAIKATH AKAND v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS N 353 of 2000 MADGWICK J 18 JULY 2000 SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 353 of 2000
BETWEEN: MOHAMMED SAIKATH AKAND
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: MADGWICK J
DATE OF ORDER: 18 JULY 2000
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application is dismissed.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 353 of 2000
BETWEEN: MOHAMMED SAIKATH AKAND
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: MADGWICK J
DATE: 18 JULY 2000
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (revised from transcript) HIS HONOUR: 1 In this matter, the applicant seeks the limited form of judicial review which is available in this Court in respect of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") made on 29 February 2000. By that decision the Tribunal confirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister, made on 15 June 1999,not to grant the applicant a protection visa in respect of his claim to be a refugee. Background facts 2 The applicant's case before the Tribunal involved the assertion that he is a principal proponent of a religious and philosophical sect which, among other things, rejects certain fundamental beliefs and disparages certain basic practices of orthodox Islam, the predominant religion in his country of nationality, Bangladesh. It seems that there was a man called Mustafa who was, before his death, the leader of this sect. Mustafa was murdered by his nephew on 25 April 1997 and the nephew claimed that he had coolly and deliberately effected this homicide for the purpose of vindicating the Muslim faith against a heretic. The applicant claimed that the nephew had attacked him in June of 1998 and had visited his family's home in February of 1999. It was also claimed that by reason of the applicant's rejection of certain Islamic practices, in particular Islamic education, he had incurred the
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