Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Adala v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 780
TAYEB ADALA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS V 680 of 1999 CARR J 9 JUNE 2000 PERTH
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 680 OF 1999
BETWEEN: TAYEB ADALA
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent
JUDGE: CARR J
DATE OF ORDER: 9 JUNE 2000
WHERE MADE: PERTH
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs. 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 V 680 OF 1999
BETWEEN: TAYEB ADALA
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent
JUDGE: CARR J
DATE: 9 JUNE 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 16 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 Algeria, arrived in Australia on 27 July 1999. He was then 45 years of age. On 29 July 1999 the applicant lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs ("the Department"). On 20 September 1999 a delegate of the respondent refused to grant the applicant a protection visa and on 23 September 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 substantially similar to several other applications recently lodged by applicants from the Port Hedland Detention Centre. The grounds of the application were stated as follows: "(1) That procedures required by the Act or the regulations to be observed in connection with the making of the decision were not observed. (2) 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. (3) The Tribunal based the decision on the existence of a particular fact and the fact did not exist. (4) The Tribunal Member refused to accept that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for Convention reasons.
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