NAAP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 805

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NAAP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 805 MIGRATION – application for a protection visa – applicant a citizen of Iran – review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal – whether decision of Refugee Review Tribunal made in good faith – whether use of the word "implausible" by the Refugee Review Tribunal cloaked a failure on the part of the Refugee Review Tribunal to make a finding of fact on a material issue ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – privative clause – s 474 Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – whether s 474 is precluded by the Bill of Rights 1689 (UK) from validating jurisdictional error WORDS AND PHRASES – "implausible" Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39B Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 36(2), 474(1), 474(2) Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Act 2001 (Cth) Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) s 15AA Bill of Rights Act 1689 (UK) Article 2 Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 applied R v Hickman; Ex parte Fox and Clinton (1945) 70 CLR 598 considered O'Toole v Charles David Pty Ltd (1990-1991) 171 CLR 232 applied SBAP v Refugee Review Tribunal [2002] FCA 590 cited SBAN v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 591 followed SAAG v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 547 cited, considered Thevendram v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1910 referred to W148/00A v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001]FCA 679 referred to W321/01A v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 210 referred to NAAG v Minister For Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 713 followed

NAAP v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS N 23 OF 2002 HELY J 26 JUNE 2002 SYDNEY