Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VGAB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 123 W148/00A v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 679 cited Guss v Johnstone [2000] FCA 1455 applied Cottrell v Wilcox [2002] FCA 232 cited Wilson v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] FCA 304 cited CDJ v VAJ (1998) 197 CLR 172 cited VACC v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 74 applied NADR v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 167 applied APPLICANT VGAB OF 2002 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS V 856 OF 2003 SUNDBERG J 24 FEBRUARY 2004 MELBOURNE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 856 OF 2003
BETWEEN: APPLICANT VGAB OF 2002
APPELLANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: SUNDBERG J
DATE OF ORDER: 24 FEBRUARY 2004
WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.
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 856 OF 2003
BETWEEN: APPLICANT VGAB OF 2002
APPELLANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: SUNDBERG J
DATE: 24 FEBRUARY 2004
PLACE: MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BACKGROUND 1 The appellant, a citizen of Sri Lanka, arrived in Australia on 22 March 2000, travelling as a member of the Sri Lankan Life Saving Association. On 6 April 2000 he applied for a Protection (Class XA) Visa. On 3 July 2000 a delegate of the respondent refused to grant the visa. The refusal was affirmed by the Refugee Review Tribunal. The appellant's application for review of the Tribunal's decision was dismissed by the Federal Magistrates Court. He has appealed from that decision to this Court. Pursuant to s 25(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) the Acting Chief Justice considered it appropriate that the appellate jurisdiction of the Court be exercised by a single Judge.
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