Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Chand v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1743
MIGRATION – decision of Refugee Review Tribunal that it did not have jurisdiction to review decision of delegate of Minister not to grant applicants protection visas – Tribunal found applicants had not applied to Tribunal within prescribed period after notification of decision of Minister – whether Tribunal based its decision on a particular fact which did not exist – whether applicants told Minister under s 53(4) of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) that a specified person at a specified address may be given notifications – construction of forms completed by applicants
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 53, 66, 412, 476(1)(g), 476(4)(b) Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) regs 2.16(1)(c), 4.31, 5.03
Singh v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (2000) 98 FCR 77 referred to Guo Heng Li v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (1999) 94 FCR 219 referred to
PREM CHAND AND SHANTI CHAND v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS N 1159 OF 2000 MOORE J 1 DECEMBER 2000 SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 1159 OF 2000
BETWEEN: PREM CHAND
FIRST APPLICANT
SHANTI CHAND
SECOND APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: MOORE J
DATE OF ORDER: 1 DECEMBER 2000
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal of 26 October 2000 that it had no jurisdiction to review the decision to refuse the applicants protection visas is set aside. 2. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal with a direction that it does have jurisdiction to so review, in so far as jurisdiction depends on the application for review being made within the time specified by reg 4.31 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). 3. The respondent pay the applicants' costs of the application. 4. Liberty to apply on 24 hours notice. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
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