Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VPAW v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1655 MIGRATION – no error of law – appeal dismissed Randhawa v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 52 FCR 437, referred to VPAW v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS V881 OF 2004
MARSHALL J 15 DECEMBER 2004 MELBOURNE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V881 OF 2004
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: VPAW
APPELLANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: MARSHALL J
DATE OF ORDER: 15 DECEMBER 2004
WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed.
2. The appellant 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 V881 OF 2004
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: VPAW
APPELLANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: MARSHALL J
DATE: 15 DECEMBER 2004
PLACE: MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from a judgment of a Federal Magistrate. The judgment below dismissed the appellant's application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the RRT"). 2 The only issue for determination in the appeal is whether his Honour erred in not holding that the RRT failed to deal with an issue it was required to determine in the course of deciding the application before it.
Factual background 3 The appellant is a young male from Sri Lanka, who is of Tamil ethnicity. He claimed to have a well founded fear of persecution if returned to Sri Lanka on account of imputed political opinion. He expressed concern about the way young Tamils are treated in Sri Lanka both by the security forces and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam ("the LTTE"). 4 The appellant was born in Jaffna in northern Sri Lanka in 1976. He claimed that in the mid 1990s he left Jaffna for Vanni. He also claimed to have travelled to Colombo in March 1999, staying there for a short while before going to India for a few weeks then returning to Colombo before travelling to the United Kingdom in September 1999 and on to Australia in April 2000. 5 At p 11 of its reasons for decision the RRT said: "The Tribunal noted that the applicant had claimed to have experienced numerous problems, but when he had the opportunity to go somewhere else or to seek protection, he had delayed or not done so. For example, despite claiming to have been tortured by the Sri Lankan armed forces on several occasions for more than a year, he had stayed in Jaffna to do his exams. He had gone to India, but had left after about a month because he didn't like it and returned to Sri Lanka. He had gone to the UK but had not sought protection from harassment by the LTTE. His actions did not indicate that he was someone who was in fear of his life. The applicant said that if he went back to Sri Lanka he would be arrested at the airport and put in jail. He could not go back to Jaffna as he had no connections there. It would be dangerous for him to live in Colombo because Tamil youths were very badly treated."
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