Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WAIP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1679 Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 36, 474 Migration Regulations 1994 Sch 2 item 785, Sch 2 item 866 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951 Art 1A(2) Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees
Applicant S20/2002 (2003)198 ALR 59 applied Chan Yee Kin v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (1989)169 CLR 379 cited Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559 cited Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Anthonypillai (2001) 106 FCR 426 applied Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Epeabaka (1999) 84FCR 411 applied Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476 applied WAIP v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS W189 of 2003 RD NICHOLSON J 17 DECEMBER 2004 PERTH
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY W189 OF 2003
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: WAIP
APPELLANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUSAFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: RD NICHOLSON J
DATE OF ORDER: 17 DECEMBER 2004
WHERE MADE: PERTH
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
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY W189 OF 2003
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: WAIP
APPELLANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUSAFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: RD NICHOLSON J
DATE: 17 DECEMBER 2004
PLACE: PERTH
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from the decision of a Federal Magistrate given on 23 May 2003. In that decision her Honour dismissed an application for review by the appellant. The application related to the decision of a Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') given on 16 August 2002 which affirmed a decision of the delegate of the respondent to not grant the appellant a protection visa. 2 The appellant is a national of Sri Lanka. He arrived in Australia on 2 July 2001 without a visa and was placed in immigration detention. On 13 August 2001 he applied for a protection (class XA) visa. His application was refused by a delegate of the respondent on 20 June 2002. It was from that refusal that the application was brought to the Tribunal. 3 In its reasons the Tribunal said that the appellant claimed he was at risk of persecution for reasons of political opinion. He claimed he would be harmed by Sri Lankan authorities, who believe that he is a supporter of the Liberated Tigers of Tamil Ealam ('LTTE') and that the LTTE want to recruit him.
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