Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Applicants in V 6 of 2000 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 764
APPLICANTS in V 6 of 2000 -v- MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
V 6 of 2000
RYAN J
18 JUNE 2002
MELBOURNE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 6 of 2000
BETWEEN: APPLICANTS in V 6 of 2000
Applicants
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent
JUDGE: RYAN J
DATE OF ORDER: 18 JUNE 2002
WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed. 2. The decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal of 10 December 1999 be affirmed. 3. The applicants pay the respondent's costs of the application, 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 V 6 of 2000
BETWEEN: APPLICANTS in V 6 of 2000
Applicants
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent
JUDGE: RYAN J
DATE: 18 JUNE 2002
PLACE: MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicants have sought a review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") affirming a decision of a delegate of the respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs ("the Minister"), to refuse the application of the first-named applicant ("the applicant") for a protection visa. The applicant has claimed that the Tribunal committed an error of law of the kind contemplated by s 476(1)(e) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act") in that it incorrectly interpreted the applicable law or incorrectly applied the law to the facts, particularly in its evaluation of the applicant's claim to have a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of her political opinions. 2 It should be noted that the applicant had originally contended that the Tribunal had failed to make findings of fact as required by s 430(1) of the Act and that consequently it had committed a procedural error under s 476(1)(a). However, that contention is no longer available as a ground of review since the judgment of the High Court in Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 180 ALR 1.
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