Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Kazi vMinister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1181
MOHAMMED OMAR ALI KAZI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS N411 of 2000 WILCOX J SYDNEY 14 AUGUST 2000
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N411 of 2000
BETWEEN: MOHAMMED OMAR ALI KAZI
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent
JUDGE: WILCOX J
DATE: 14 AUGUST 2000
PLACE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application be dismissed.
2. The applicant, Mohammed Omar Ali Kazi, is to pay the costs of the respondent, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.
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 N411 of 2000
BETWEEN: MOHAMMED OMAR ALI KAZI
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent
JUDGE: WILCOX J
DATE: 14 AUGUST 2000
PLACE: SYDNEY
EXTEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 WILCOX J: This is an application to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal refusing an application for a protection visa made by the applicant, Mohammed Omar Ali Kazi. The Court may only review decisions of the Tribunal in relation to matters specified in s476 of the Migration Act 1958. Broadly speaking, those matters concern mistakes of law or failure to follow statutory procedures. 2 Mr Kazi has not raised any ground that falls within s476 of the Migration Act. Mr Kazi made clear to me that he is unhappy with the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal. He said it is "not satisfactory" to him, because the Tribunal did not accept his evidence or the papers he produced. He asked me to send the case back to the Tribunal to be considered again. 3 Mr Kazi also told me he fears returning to Bangladesh; indeed he is "not able to do so" because of the problems he would face in that country. 4 I understand that Mr Kazi does not regard the Tribunal's decision as satisfactory. However, it is not open to me to set aside the Tribunal's decision unless there is a ground of review within s476 of the Migration Act. In particular, it would not be open to me to set aside the decision simply because I reached the conclusion, if I did, that the Tribunal's findings of fact were unsatisfactory. In fact, I have reached no conclusion about the facts; it is not my function to do so. 5 I read the Tribunal's decision with some care. I knew that Mr Kazi would probably not have a lawyer representing him today. I therefore considered, for myself, whether there was any sign of legal error by the Tribunal. I found no such sign. Mr Kazi failed before the Tribunal because the Tribunal did not accept his claims about facts. That does not involve any finding about the law. 6 As no ground of review within s476 is established, I must dismiss the application. The order of the Court is that the application be dismissed with costs. I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Wilcox .
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