Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Rahman v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1794
IMMIGRATION – whether Tribunal failed to make a finding on a material question of fact – whether there was evidence or other material to justify the making of the Tribunal's decision.
AATIQ SHARIFUR RAHMAN V MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS JUDGE: BEAUMONT J DATE: 22 DECEMBER 2000 PLACE: SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 1167 OF 2000
BETWEEN: AATIQ SHARIFUR RAHMAN
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: BEAUMONT J
DATE OF ORDER: 22 DECEMBER 2000
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 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 1167 OF 2000
BETWEEN: AATIQ SHARIFUR RAHMAN
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: BEAUMONT J
DATE: 22 DECEMBER 2000
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BEAUMONT J:
INTRODUCTION 1 This is an application to review judicially a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") affirming the decision of the Minister's delegate to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa. The applicant, a Bangladesh citizen of 23 years of age, arrived in Australia on 3 May 2000 on a student visa which had been cancelled on 14 January 2000. The applicant had previously (in 1998) entered Australia on a student visa. 2 The applicant has appeared in person with the aid of an interpreter but it seems he had some professional assistance in drafting the grounds of his amended application for an order of review. The applicant relies upon two grounds: (1) A contention that s 368(1) (scire licet, s 430(1)), of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act") was breached because the Tribunal made no finding with respect to a particular aspect of his claim; and (2) a contention that there was no evidence or other material to justify the Tribunal's decision. 3 In order to understand the issues, it will be necessary to refer to the Tribunal's statement of its reasons relevantly as follows:
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