Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NG1032/00 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1263
No question of principle NG1032/00 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS N 644 OF 2000 HELY J 11 SEPTEMBER 2000 SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 644 OF 2000
BETWEEN: NG1032/00
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: HELY J
DATE OF ORDER: 11 SEPTEMBER 2000
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed with 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 644 OF 2000
BETWEEN: NG1032/00
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: HELY J
DATE: 11 SEPTEMBER 2000
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant is a citizen of China who arrived in Australia on 13 April 1999 as a business visitor. On 20 August 1999 he lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration & Multicultural Affairs ("DIMA"). On 8 May 2000 the Refugee Review Tribunal ("RRT") affirmed the decision of the Minister's delegate not to grant a protection visa. The applicant seeks an Order of Review of that decision. 2 The application asserts that the applicant is outside his country of nationality because he has a well-founded fear of persecution at the hands of the Chinese State Security Bureau, the Chinese secret police, by reason of his political opinion. The form of application does not, however, disclose the existence of any of the grounds on which the decision may be reviewed under s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"). In addition, a document was lodged with the application for review styled "Applicant's Submissions". That document asserts that the decision of RRT is incorrect and unfair in various respects identified in the document, and asserts an entitlement, on the merits, to the grant of a protection visa. Again, the focus of this document is not upon the limited grounds on which this Court is entitled, under the Act, to review a decision of RRT. 3 The applicant is a businessman who has operated in China and other parts of the world since January 1987. He has travelled extensively and returned to China several times. 4 RRT accepted that on 3 September 1998 the applicant went to the US Embassy in Hong Kong and to the FBI. He told officials there about a man whom he had met at some earlier point in time by the name of "Naeem", who was a friend of the terrorist Osama Bin Laden, and gave them some information about the bombing of the US Embassy in Nairobi. The applicant gave this information to the FBI because Naeem had cheated him out of money. In August 1998 he had met Naeem in Pakistan and paid him US$2,100 for a visa to the USA which he never received. He was also interested in receiving a reward if there was one on offer.
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