Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Ong v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1500
GEOK LAN ONG v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS N1079 of 2001
MADGWICK J 27 SEPTEMBER 2001 SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N1079 of 2001
BETWEEN: GEOK LAN ONG
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: MADGWICK J
DATE OF ORDER: 27 SEPTEMBER 2001
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs on an indemnity basis
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N1079 of 2001
BETWEEN: GEOK LAN ONG
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: MADGWICK J
DATE: 27 SEPTEMBER 2001
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (revised from transcript) HIS HONOUR:
1 This is an application for the limited form of judicial review available in this Court under Pt 8 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"). The applicant seeks review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") of 20 June 2001, which affirmed the decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister refusing her the grant of a protection visa.
Background 2 The applicant who is a citizen of Malaysia applied for a protection visa on 13 October 2000. She had arrived in Australia as a temporary entrant on 8 September 2000. Her application was scanty. On 19 October 2000, a delegate of the respondent Minister refused to grant the visa. On 14 November 2000, the applicant sought a review of the decision of the delegate by the Tribunal. The applicant's claims were again scanty. They were briefly that, being of Chinese ethnicity and following the Buddhist religion, she was discriminated against in Malaysia and feared for her safety there because of political instability, social conflict and possible chaos in the country. 3 The applicant was invited to give oral evidence before the Tribunal, but did not attend or respond to the offer in any way. The Tribunal as it was entitled to do, made its decision without taking any further action to permit the applicant to appear before it. 4 The Tribunal member took the view, to summarise it in a way that sacrifices the detail and subtlety of the reasoning, that while the applicant is a member of the Chinese minority and might be discriminated against, the discrimination did not amount to persecution, and that while there were some restrictions in Malaysia on the followers of religions other than Islam, she was not denied the right to practise her religion nor would she otherwise face persecution in Malaysia for reasons of religion. The applicant had not been able to point to any serious harm to her on account of her ethnicity or religion or any combination of that.
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