Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Visvalingam v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1790
MIGRATION LAW – Protection visa – Appeal from primary judge's decision affirming decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal – Whether error of law - Whether Refugee Review Tribunal addressed the issue of persecution on the basis of being a "Tamil from the north of Sri Lanka" BALALINGAM APPAKUTTI VISVALINGAM v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS N 994 of 2001 O'LOUGHLIN, WHITLAM & MARSHALL JJ 14 DECEMBER 2001 SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 994 of 2001
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: BALALINGAM APPAKUTTI VISVALINGAM
APPELLANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION
AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGES: O'LOUGHLIN, WHITLAM & MARSHALL JJ
DATE OF ORDER: 30 NOVEMBER 2001
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal is dismissed with costs. 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 994 of 2001
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: BALALINGAM APPAKUTTI VISVALINGAM
APPELLANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION
AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGES: O'LOUGHLIN, WHITLAM AND MARSHALL JJ
DATE: 14 DECEMBER 2001
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT THE COURT: 1 On 30 November 2001 we ordered that this appeal be dismissed with costs. These are our reasons for making that order. 2 The judgment appealed from was given on 8 June 2001. The primary judge dismissed the appellant's application to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the RRT") made on 27 November 2000. The relevant RRT decision affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent that the appellant was not entitled to a protection visa. 3 The relevant factual background, as described by the primary judge, is not in dispute. His Honour said (at [3]-[9]): "The Applicant is a Sri Lankan citizen of Tamil ethnicity who was born in Colombo in 1955. He is married with one daughter, both of whom remain resident in Sri Lanka. The Applicant has spent almost twenty years of the last twenty-one years of his life residing outside Sri Lanka. The Applicant obtained a transit visa for Australia in Colombo on 14 August 1995, to enable him to visit his sister and brother-in-law in Papua New Guinea. On his return to Sri Lanka, he entered Australia on 6 October 1995 as the holder of a three day transit visa. On 11 October 1995, he lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. When the matter was before the RRT, he claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution by the Sri Lankan Government (and its agents), on the basis of his race and imputed political opinion in support of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). He also claimed fear of persecution by the LTTE for reasons of race.
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