Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Uddin v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 90
CITIZENSHIP AND MIGRATION – whether trial judge erred in exercise of discretion to refuse stay to obtain further evidence – whether "no evidence" before the Tribunal – whether further evidence should be admitted.
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 476(1)(g), (4)(b). Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, s 27. Maxwell v Keun[1928] 1 KB 645, referred to. Bloch v Bloch (1981) 180 CLR 390, referred to. Sali v SPC Ltd and anor (1993) 116 ALR 625, referred to. Wilson v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] FCA 304, cited. NIZAM UDDIN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS N1161 of 2000 NORTH, MANSFIELD, KATZ JJ SYDNEY 22 FEBRUARY 2001
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N1161 OF 2000
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: NIZAM UDDIN
APPELLANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: NORTH, MANSFIELD AND KATZ JJ
DATE OF ORDER: 22 FEBRUARY 2001
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant is to pay the respondent's cost of and incidental to the appeal. 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 N1161 OF 2000
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: NIZAM UDDIN
APPELLANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: NORTH, MANSFIELD AND KATZ JJ
DATE: 22 FEBRUARY 2001
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 Before the Court is an appeal against orders made by Emmett J on 4 September 2000. The orders included an order dismissing the application of Mr Nizam Uddin (the appellant) for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). 2 The decision of the Tribunal was made on 27 April 2000. It affirmed the decision of the delegate of the respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (the Minister) to refuse the appellant a protection visa.
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