Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Rahman v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1096
Migration Act 1958 MD MAZIBAR RAHMAN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS N 461 OF 2001 HEEREY, EMMETT & ALLSOP JJ 8 AUGUST 2001 SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 461 OF 2001
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: MD MAZIBAR RAHMAN
APPELLANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGES: HEEREY, EMMETT & ALLSOP JJ
DATE OF ORDER: 8 AUGUST 2001
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The appellant 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 461 OF 2001
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: MD MAZIBAR RAHMAN
APPELLANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGES: HEEREY, EMMETT & ALLSOP JJ
DATE: 8 AUGUST 2001
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
HEEREY J: 1 This is an appeal from a decision of a judge of this Court who dismissed an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) which affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse the appellant a protection visa. The appellant was represented by counsel before the primary judge but it would appear since then has not had legal representation. His notice of appeal gave as the only ground "His Honour erred in failing to find that the Tribunal erred his decision under section 476(1)(g), section 476(1)(e) of the Migration Act 1958". 2 Through an interpreter on the hearing of the appeal the appellant said he "Wished that my background may be considered", and that he had "Given in the book and requested that it be considered". The respondent had filed written submissions and appellant said that they were "not right". 3 In my opinion the appellant has not shown any ground for this Court to interfere with the decision of the primary judge. Of course, this Court cannot review the merits of the appellant's claim before the Tribunal. The Court can only consider whether any error was made in the primary judge's reaching the conclusion that he did. No error has been identified. 4 In my opinion the appeal should be dismissed.
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