Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Sardar v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1474 CITIZENSHIP & MIGRATION – protection visa – application for order of review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal ("RRT") affirming decision of delegate refusing grant – whether RRT failed to observe procedures required by the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to be observed in connection with the making of the decision – whether the RRT referred to evidence upon which a finding of fact was based
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 430, 476 Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Singh [2000] FCA 845 followed Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs ; Ex parte Durairajasingham (2000) 168 ALR 407 referred to
AKTER ALI SARDAR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS N 706 OF 2000 EMMETT J 9 OCTOBER 2000 SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 706 OF 2000
BETWEEN: AKTER ALI SARDAR
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: EMMETT J
DATE OF ORDER: 9 OCTOBER 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 706 OF 2000
BETWEEN: AKTER ALI SARDAR
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: EMMETT J
DATE: 9 OCTOBER 2000
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh. He arrived in Australia on 11 July 1997. On 4 September 1997 he lodged an application for a protection (class AZ) visa. On 13 March 1998 a delegate of the respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs ("the Minister"), refused to grant a protection visa. On 7 April 1998 the applicant applied for a review of that decision. On 26 May 2000 the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") affirmed the decision not to grant a protection visa. The applicant has now applied to this Court for an order of review of the Tribunal's decision. 2 The grounds stated in the original application made no reference to section 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"). When the matter was called on for hearing today counsel for the applicant sought leave to amend the application by substituting new grounds. That application was not opposed and leave was given. The amended grounds refer to sections 476(1)(a), (e) and (g). However, in the course of argument counsel for the applicant abandoned any reliance on section 476(1)(e) and 476(1)(g). 3 The ground based on section 476(1)(a) is that the Tribunal failed to observe procedures required by section 430 of the Act to be observed in connection with the making of the decision. In particular reliance is placed on section 430(1) paragraphs (c) and (d) which relevantly provide as follows: "(1) Where the Tribunal makes its decision on a review, the Tribunal must prepare a written statement that: ……………………… (c) sets out the findings on any material questions of fact; and
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