Wu Chen v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 766

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Wu Chen v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 766

WU CHEN v THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

VG 704 of 1998 RYAN J MELBOURNE 22 JUNE 2001

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VG 704 of 1998

BETWEEN: WU CHEN

Applicant

AND: THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Respondent

JUDGE: RYAN J

DATE OF ORDER: 22 JUNE 2001

WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VG 704 of 1998

BETWEEN: WU CHEN

Applicant

AND: THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Respondent

JUDGE: RYAN J

DATE: 22 JUNE 2001

PLACE: MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application to set aside a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"), made on 2 December 1998 affirming a decision of the respondent's delegate not to grant the applicant a protection visa. 2 A decision of the Tribunal may be reviewed under Pt 8 of the Migration Act 1958 ("the Act"), and that review is restricted to consideration of the grounds in s 476, which is in these terms: "(1) Subject to subsection (2), application may be made for review by the Federal Court of a judicially-reviewable decision on any one or more of the following grounds: (a) that procedures that were required by this Act or the regulations to be observed in connection with the making of the decision were not observed; (b) that the person who purported to make the decision did not have jurisdiction to make the decision; (c) that the decision was not authorised by this Act or the regulations; (d) that the decision was an improper exercise of the power conferred by this Act or the regulations; (e) that the decision involved an error of law, being an error involving an incorrect interpretation of the applicable law or an incorrect application of the law to the facts as found by the person who made the decision, whether or not the error appears on the record of the decision; (f) that the decision was induced or affected by fraud or by actual bias; (g) that there was no evidence or other material to justify the making of the decision. (2) The following are not grounds upon which an application may be made under subsection (1): (a) that a breach of the rules of natural justice occurred in connection with the making of the decision; (b) that the decision involved an exercise of a power that is so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have so exercised the power.