Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NAHT of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 1049
MIGRATION – application for review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal – whether s 474(1) operated to protect the decision. Migration Act 1958 (Cth) Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Act 2001 (Cth)
NAAV v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 228 applied NAAG of 2002 v MIMIA [2002] FCA 713 cited
NAHT OF 2002 V MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
NO. N 401 OF 2002
BEAUMONT J
22 AUGUST 2002
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N401 OF 2002
BETWEEN: NAHT OF 2002
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: BEAUMONT
DATE OF ORDER: 22 AUGUST 2002
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be 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 N401 OF 2002
BETWEEN: NAHT OF 2002
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: BEAUMONT
DATE: 22 AUGUST 2002
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BEAUMONT J:
INTRODUCTION 1 This is an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") made on 18 March 2002, whereby the Tribunal affirmed a decision of the delegate of the Minister not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The application therefore falls within the "privative clause" regime of s 474 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"). 2 The application for an order of review, filed on 3 May 2002, sets out the "details of claim" as follows: "1. The procedures that were required under the Migration Act 1958 to be observed in connection with the making of the decision were not observed; 2. The Tribunal ignored the merits of the claim. 3. The Tribunal did not take into consideration real picture of the Bangladeshi politics. 4. The Tribunal made errors to decide the fate of the applicant's claim. 5. The Tribunal misjudged the fate of the applicant's claim. 6. The Tribunal have not considered the evidentiary proof of the applicant's claim. 7. The Tribunal used authorities to decide the case are biased and influenced by the Bangladeshi government." 3 The applicant's affidavit, sworn 3 May 2002, which accompanied the application, states: "1. The member of the Tribunal took a number of irrelevant matters into consideration. 2. I was deprived of receiving natural justice. 3. The Tribunal made errors in deciding the fate of my claim. 4. The Tribunal's assertion in regard to politics in Bangladesh is not accurate. 5. I am not satisfied by the decision of the Tribunal. 6. The Tribunal did not consider me as a refugee in accordance with the United Nations Convention 1951 as amended 1967 protocol related to the status of refugees. 7. The authorities which were used to justify the decision are biased and influenced by Bangladeshi authorities."
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