Shanmugavarathan v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1215

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Shanmugavarathan v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1215 MIGRATION – protection visa – application for review of decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal – claim that applicant will be recognized from films of demonstrations in Australia against visiting Sri Lankan Ministers – whether failure to make findings of fact Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 430(1)(c) and (d), s 476(1)(a), s 476(1)(g) and (4)(b)

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Singh [2000] FCA 845, applied Paramanthan v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1998) 94 FCR 28 at 62-4, applied

THURAIRAJAH SHANMUGAVARATHAN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS V 170 of 2000 HEEREY J MELBOURNE 10 OCTOBER 2000

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 170 of 2000

BETWEEN: THURAIRAJAH SHANMUGAVARATHAN

Applicant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Respondent

JUDGE: HEEREY J

DATE OF ORDER: 10 OCTOBER 2000

WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal made 25 February 2000 is set aside. 2. The applicant's application for review of the decision to refuse him a protection visa is remitted to the Tribunal differently constituted for rehearing according to law. 3. The respondent pay the applicant's costs, including reserved costs. 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 170 of 2000

BETWEEN: THURAIRAJAH SHANMUGAVARATHAN

Applicant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Respondent

JUDGE: HEEREY J

DATE: 10 OCTOBER 2000

PLACE: MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant is a Sri Lankan citizen of Tamil ethnicity. He seeks review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal given on 25 February 2000 affirming a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant him a protection visa. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant was a refugee within the meaning of the Refugees Convention, that is to say a person who "owing to well‑founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it."