Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NBIT v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 621 NBIT v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL NSD 230 of 2006 MADGWICK J 12 MAY 2006 SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 230 OF 2006
BETWEEN: NBIT
APPELLANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE: MADGWICK J
DATE OF ORDER: 12 MAY 2006
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed with costs assessed in the sum of $2500.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 230 OF 2006
BETWEEN: NBIT
APPELLANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE: MADGWICK J
DATE: 12 MAY 2006
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT HIS HONOUR: 1 This is an appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court given by Lloyd‑Jones FM on 25 January 2006. His Honour dismissed the appellant's application to that Court seeking judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') given on 14 July 2004 which was adverse to the appellant. 2 The matters agitated before the learned Federal Magistrate were a claim that the respondents (I interpolate that the plural is significant) denied the applicant natural justice 'by not considering the context in which the applicant will face persecution and serious harm for being a Christian in China', a claim that the respondents (again the plural) have not considered the evidence which is in favour of the applicant because '[t]hey have only considered the evidence which is not in favour of applicant', and a claim that the Tribunal failed to take into account 'any independent country information as to the treatment of Christians in China'. 3 His Honour dealt with these questions in a way which on its face does not bespeak error. In the notice of appeal to this Court the applicant asserted as his two grounds for appeal:
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