Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Shwe v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 988 IMMIGRATION – Refugee Review Tribunal – whether decision affected by actual bias – whether approach to analysis of evidence and facts by Tribunal justifies inference of actual bias. Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 36, 65, 476. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Yit v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 885, followed. Sun v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (1997) 81 FCR 71, followed. Jia v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (1999) 93 FCR 556, cited. Li v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (2000) 96 FCR 125, cited.
TIN SHWE v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS N 499 of 2000 SACKVILLE J 27 JULY 2000 SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 499 OF 2000
BETWEEN: TIN SHWE
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: SACKVILLE J
DATE OF ORDER: 27 JULY 2000
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
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
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 499 OF 2000
BETWEEN: TIN SHWE
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: SACKVILLE J
DATE: 27 JULY 2000
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE PROCEEDINGS 1 The applicant is a citizen of Burma who arrived in Australia on 26 March 1996. On 11 June 1996, he lodged an application for a protection (class XA) visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. On 25 November 1997, a delegate of the respondent ("the Minister") refused to grant a protection visa. On 28 November 1997, the applicant sought review of that decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). On 5 April 2000, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant a protection visa. The applicant now seeks an order of review of that decision in this Court. 2 The amended application identified a number of grounds upon which the applicant sought relief in this Court. Ms Winfield, who appeared on behalf of the applicant, relied at the hearing on only two grounds of review available under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("Migration Act"): · First, she contended that the decision of the Tribunal involved an error of law (s 476(1)(e)), in that the Tribunal misconceived the nature of the claim made by the applicant; and · Secondly, the decision of the Tribunal was affected by actual bias (s 476(1)(f)). 3 In so far as the applicant's case rests on actual bias, it raises issues similar to those dealt with in a judgment delivered by me today: Yit v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 885. Much of what is said in that judgment applies to the present case.
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