Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Gzirishvili v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 233
ZURAB GZIRISHVILI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS N1060 of 2000 MADGWICK J 8 MARCH 2001 SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N1060 of 2000
BETWEEN: ZURAB GZIRISHVILI
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: MADGWICK J
DATE OF ORDER: 8 MARCH 2001
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT DIRECTS THAT: 1. The Registrar ask the President of the NSW Bar Association whether counsel experienced in administrative and migration law might be found to act pro bono as amicus curiae in this matter. THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The matter be stood over for further directions on Friday 23 March 2001 at 9:30am.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N1060 of 2000
BETWEEN: ZURAB GZIRISHVILI
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: MADGWICK J
DATE: 8 MARCH 2001
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (revised from transcript) HIS HONOUR: 1 This is an unusual matter. The applicant came to Australia as part of a group of nine men from the same area of Georgia, supposedly as sponsors of a youth soccer team. When they arrived they each sought protection as political refugees, relying on a common written submission in which they said they were members of the Akhaltsikhe Gamsakhurdia Party group. The nine were represented by a single migration agent whose understanding of the relevant law appears to be at best partial. 2 Somewhat surprisingly, the applications of the nine which each made to the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"), following an unfavourable determination of their individual cases by a delegate of the respondent Minister, were not heard together by the Tribunal. I should say, "on the face of matters, somewhat surprisingly," because it might be that the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act") puts some barrier on joint hearings that has not been explored before me. 3 The Tribunal refused the appeals of each of the applicants and most if not all of them have sought judicial review of the relevant decision of the Tribunal before this Court. While
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