Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
George v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs
[2001] FCA 804
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 476(1)(b), 476(1)(e)
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf [2001] HCA 31 Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559 A v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (1999) 53 ALD 545 Randhawa v Minister for Immigration, Local Government & Ethnic Affairs (1994) 52 FCR 437
JACQUELINE GEORGE, SAMANTHA GEORGE and VANESSA GEORGE v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N 237 OF 2001
GYLES J
SYDNEY
28 June 2001
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 237 OF 2001
BETWEEN: JACQUELINE GEORGE, SAMANTHA GEORGE and VANESSA GEORGE
APPLICANTS
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: GYLES J
DATE OF ORDER: 28 June 2001
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the costs of the respondent. 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 237 OF 2001
BETWEEN: JACQUELINE GEORGE, SAMANTHA GEORGE and VANESSA GEORGE
APPLICANTS
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: GYLES J
DATE: 28 June 2001
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application for review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the RRT") made on 29 January 2001 and handed down on 20 February 2001. The RRT affirmed the decision of the delegate of the respondent Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to refuse to grant a protection visa to the applicants. The first applicant, Jacqueline George, is a citizen of India. The other two applicants, Samantha George and Vanessa George, are her daughters. The applicants arrived in Australia in March 2000. Consideration by the RRT and argument before me has naturally concentrated upon the position of the first applicant and I shall do so in this judgment. 2 When the matter came on for hearing before me on 22 June 2001 it was apparent that the submissions which were proposed to be put by counsel for the applicant were not properly encompassed by the application then on foot in the proceeding. I granted leave to the applicants to file what amounted to a fresh set of grounds, with an amended application. I need not set out these grounds in full. The first applicant is an Anglo-Indian, Roman Catholic woman who fears persecution if she returns to India because of her religious beliefs and her practice of them.
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