Specialist in Australian Immigration, Migration Consultant and Online Australian Visa Assessment Service.
Australian Immigration Specialists - Australian Immigration Consultants Online Australian Visa Assessments for immigration to Australia
  Research Home

Categories
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Federal Court
Federal Magistrates Court
Full Federal Court
High Court
Migration Review Tribunal
Other Jurisdictions
Refugee Review Tribunal
Recently Added
Re Patterson; Ex parte Taylor [2001] HCA 51 (6 September 2001)
Singh v Commonwealth of Australia [2004] HCA 43 (9 September 2004)
Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal; Lie v Refugee Review Tribunal [2002] HCA 30

"Use the Migration Specialists that migration agents use"
Cases

A Art Flooring Service [2003] MRTA 593 (31 January 2003)

CATCHWORDS: Review of business sponsorship rejection - temporary business entry scheme -

A & F Drive Shaft 2004 MRTA 2328 14 April 2004

Review of business sponsorship rejection - temporary business entry scheme

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision that the review applicant be approved as a standard business sponsor. The instrument of approval is attached to this statement.

Abu-Loughod v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC

MIGRATION - appellant denied protection visa by Refugee Review Tribunal - whether appellant is a "refugee" - interpretation of Art 1D of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees - extension of time to file notice of appeal refused

W440/01A v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 21

MIGRATION - refugee - refusal of a protection visa - whether Tribunal failed to consider relevant material - whether Tribunal erred in refusing to have regard to documents corroborating applicant's claim to fear persecution if returned to Tunisia

N1202/01A v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 9

IMMIGRATION - Decision of Refugee Review Tribunal refusing protection visa - decision of primary judge affirming decision of Tribunal - appellant citizen of Iran of Kurdish ethnicity and adherent to Al-Haqq - appellant's wife converted to Al-Haqq from Islam - whether in assessing degree of risk that appellant would face persecution in the future the Tribunal had regard to the degree of probability that past events had occurred as claimed - where Tribunal did not accept that past events had occurred as claimed because it was unpersuaded or unable to reach a state of positive belief - where Tribunal did not find that appellant was an untruthful witness whose evidence was to be rejected.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Extension of time for appeal - where period of delay in filing the notice of appeal approximately two months - whether special circumstances exist- where appellant does not understand English, is not familiar with the Australian legal system and has been interned in a detention centre without legal representation - whether real issue to be considered in the appeal.

W412/01A v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 99

MIGRATION - Decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal refusing protection visa - decision of primary judge affirming decision of Tribunal - whether Tribunal decision involved jurisdictional error - where Tribunal failed to consider evidence corroborative of the claims made - where Tribunal misconstrued the nature and content of Court documents - where Tribunal failed to consider whether appellant had a well founded fear of persecution.

NAAO v Secretary, Department of Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002]

MIGRATION - application for protection visa - refusal to disclose information under s 503A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) - undisclosed information contained name of foreign agency which supplied protected information to the Minister - whether the name of the agency is protected information - whether conditions upon which information is supplied is protected information - whether source was a "gazetted agency"

W 194 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 39 (5

1 This is an appeal from the judgment of a single judge of the Court, French J, given on 10 August 2001. His Honour dismissed an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the RRT") made pursuant to s476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act").

2 The appellant is a citizen of Iran who arrived in Australia on 22 December 2000. On 8 January 2001, with the assistance of solicitors, he applied for a protection visa. A delegate of the respondent Minister determined to refuse the visa application on 22 February 2001. The next day the appellant lodged an application for review of the delegate's decision by the RRT.

De Alwis v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affair

Practice and procedure - costs - indemnity costs - applicable principles - purpose of indemnity costs compensatory rather than punitive - usual rule that costs awarded on a party and party basis - discretion of the Court - exercise of the discretion depends on particular circumstances - appeal commenced or continued when appellant should have known on proper advice that there was no chance of success - failure to comply with rules or directions of the Court - costs awarded on indemnity basis.

Applicant NARO v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affa

1 This is an appeal from a decision, made by a judge of this Court on 26 November 2002, to dismiss the appellant's application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal made on 21 June 2002 but not "handed down" until 16 July 2002. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent, made on 17 January 2000, not to grant a protection visa to the appellant.

NADR v Minister of Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

2 This is an appeal from a decision of a primary judge (Wilcox J) dismissing an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (`the Tribunal') affirming a decision of a delegate of the respondent to refuse to grant the appellant a protection visa pursuant to the provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (`the Act'): NADR v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 312.

NAAK v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 160 (3

1 The appellant appeals from a decision of a Judge of the Court dismissing with costs his application for review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). The Tribunal had dismissed his application for review of a decision of a delegate of the respondent, the Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs, ("the Delegate" and "the Minister" respectively) by which the Tribunal affirmed the Delegate's decision not to grant the appellant a protection visa. The appellant was born in Vladivostok and is a citizen of the Russian Federation. His claim was that he had a well-founded fear of persecution in Russia because he is Jewish.

WACW v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002]

1 The appellant is a male Iranian citizen. He arrived in Australia on 19 June 2000. At that time he was almost 33 years of age. On 1 March 2001 he lodged an application for a protection visa (class XA) under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"). On 26 March 2001 a delegate of the respondent refused the application. On 18 July 2001 the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") affirmed the decision of the delegate. On 7 December 2001 Carr J dismissed an application by the appellant to review the decision of the Tribunal. Because of the date at which the appellant applied for judicial review, his application and the appeal must be dealt with pursuant to the provisions of s 476 of the Act as they stood prior to amendments which came into operation on 2 October 2001.

2 The criterion for a protection visa is whether, at the time of the decision, the decision-maker is satisfied that the appellant is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees ("the Convention"): ss 5(1) and 36(2) of the Act. In accordance with Art 1A(2) of the Convention, to qualify as a refugee an applicant must show that "owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, he ... is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country...".

NACI v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2

1 There is only one issue raised by this appeal. That issue is whether the tribunal was required to notify the appellant of the period within which the appellant could submit additional information to the tribunal. If the tribunal erred in that regard it should have refrained from determining his application for review until it had given that notification and the period had passed.

2 Only a brief statement of the facts will be necessary. The appellant seeks asylum in Australia. He claims to have a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason if he were required to return to China, which he says is his country of nationality. Shortly after his arrival in Australia, the appellant applied for a protection visa. In the material in support of that application the appellant asserted that he had been persecuted by the Chinese authorities on account of his religious views and his political opinion. He produced a number of documents in support of his claim. The documents included untranslated copies of documents that purported to be a newspaper article, his birth certificate, his marriage certificate, his driver's licence and his identity card. In a statement which accompanied his application, the appellant referred to other documents including a book entitled "Meditating True Jesus Christ" which he said he had written, and a copy of the New Testament which he said he had prepared. The application was considered by a delegate of the Minister who was not satisfied that the appellant was a Convention refugee, and so refused to grant him a protection visa. The appellant took his application to the tribunal, seeking to overturn the decision of the delegate.

Egounova v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 15

1 This is an appeal from the orders of a judge of the Court made on 26 July 2001 dismissing an application for review by the appellant from a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) which affirmed the decision of the delegate of the respondent to refuse the appellant and her two daughters protection visas.

2 The appellant is a citizen of Russia. She and her two daughters arrived in Australia on a visitor's visa in February 1998. Shortly thereafter, on 27 March 1998, they applied for protection visas. The two daughters had no case for a protection visa separate from that of their mother. The application was refused by a delegate of the respondent on 10 June 1998. An application for review was made to the Tribunal. On 19 June 2000 there was a hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal handed down its decision on 26 October 2000.

VAM v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 125 (10

1 This is an appeal from the decision of Marshall J dismissing an application by the appellant for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant the appellant a protection visa.

WABR v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 124 (1

IMMIGRATION - Applicant from Iran - claim of homosexuality - whether Tribunal should have found that the penalty facing a person convicted of homosexuality in Iran constituted persecution per se - whether the Tribunal should have had regard to the possibility of an adverse change in the attitude of the Iranian authorities towards homosexuals.

VAAI v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 123 (1

MIGRATION - application for a protection visa - whether primary judge erred in concluding no reviewable error by Refugee Review Tribunal in finding that applicant had not made a particular claim in his application, in drawing inferences without any evidentiary basis, and in failing to have regard to relevant considerations - whether any jurisdictional or other legal error by Tribunal.

WACK v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 122 (9

MIGRATION - asylum seeker from Iran - application for a protection visa - whether the decision of the primary judge was contrary to law - whether the decision of the primary judge places the appellant at serious risk of being forcibly returned to Iran where he has a well-founded fear of being persecuted

W26 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 90 (4 A

1 This is an appeal from a decision of a Judge of the Court dismissing the application of the appellant for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") which affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the appellant a protection visa pursuant to the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act").

THE APPELLANT'S CLAIMS AND THE TRIBUNAL'S DECISION

2 The appellant is a national of Iran who arrived in Australia by boat from Indonesia on 12 September 2000. He is an electrician. He claimed that he was entitled to a protection visa because he had a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of his political opinion. In summary, the appellant's claims were as follows:

VAAM v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 120

MIGRATION - application for protection visa - whether primary judge erred in finding no reviewable error by Refugee Review Tribunal in relation to degree of detail required in application for protection visa, or in failing to put to the applicant its view of the lack of such detail in the application and invite him to respond.

WABK v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 115

MIGRATION - appeal from decision of primary judge dismissing appeal from Refugee Review Tribunal - protection visa application - appellant claimed well-founded fear of persecution in Iran because of involvement with Pan Iranist Party - whether error of law - where appellant sought review of factual findings of Refugee Review Tribunal.

Ariyagama v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 1

MIGRATION - Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa, sub-class 560 - whether primary judge erred in dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal where MRT affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister to cancel the appellant's visa - section 359A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) - whether information relied on by the MRT was information given to the MRT for the purpose of the application - whether primary judge erred in not finding that the MRT misinterpreted and misapplied condition 8202(a) and 8202(b) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) - whether primary judge erred in interpretation and application of 8202(c) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)

Abeysinghe v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC

IMMIGRATION - appeal from decision of primary judge refusing a protection visa - Sri Lankan citizen claimed fear of persecution founded on association with a man involved in the Tamil Separatist organisation - whether by repeatedly using the word `unconvincing' in its decision Tribunal had imposed an evidentiary onus on appellant so as to amount to an error of law - whether Tribunal should have informed appellant if it had concerns as to answers provided in response to questions pertaining to appellant's credit - no reviewable error under s 476 Migration Act identified.

Gomez v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 105 (

MIGRATION - appeal from Single Judge to Full Court - whether primary Judge erred in holding that decision of Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") had not involved an error of law within the meaning of s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (as then enacted) - whether there was a duty on the part of the Tribunal to make inquiries - whether there was a duty on the primary judge to examine the decision of the Tribunal beyond the grounds advanced by the appellant

Sivasubramaniam v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] F

MIGRATION - appeal - protection visas - dismissal of application for review by primary judge - whether failure to find Tribunal in error in relation to persecution finding - whether failure to consider claim of revenge in overseas country could provide basis of well-founded fear in home country - whether failure in effective protection finding properly to consider real chance that state protection was not available - whether failure in relocation finding to consider possibility of extortion or persecution through appellant's parents

James v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 91 (8

MIGRATION - Family (Residence) Visa - appeal from a single judge dismissing application for review of decision of Migration Review Tribunal - whether appellant an "aged dependent relative" for the purposes of reg 1.03 Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) - appellant living apart from wife but no decree of judicial separation - whether appellant "formally separated" in the context of definition of "aged dependent relative"

Desai v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 76 (2

1 The issue for determination in this appeal is whether cl 686.221(2)(g)(ii) in subclass 686 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) ("the Regulations"), which deals with the Tourist (Long Stay) visa, should be read down so that it can be satisfied by a visa applicant who intends, while in Australia, to engage in studies or training, but for a period of less than three months.

2 The legislative setting and the factual circumstances out of which this appeal arises are set out in the reasons of Mansfield and Emmett JJ. Though I respectfully agree with much of the analysis to which Mansfield J subjects the regulatory scheme, I do not agree with the conclusion their Honours have reached.

Rahman v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 88 (

1 This is an appeal from the decision of a primary judge (French J) given on 23 July 2001. The appeal is brought against the dismissal of an application by the appellant in which he sought judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") made on 12 January 2001. In its decision the Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent not to grant to the appellant a protection visa. He had applied for that visa under the provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act").

2 The principal criterion for the grant of a protection visa is that the applicant is a non-citizen in Australia to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol: s 36(2) of the Act. Those references are defined by s 5 of the Act to refer to "the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28 July 1951" and "the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees done at New York on 31 January 1967".

MIGRATION - application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Trib

MIGRATION - application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal refusing to grant a protection visa - where claim of persecution rejected due to failure to raise claim at initial interview - whether Tribunal is required to expressly state that it is exercising caution in relying on initial interview evidence.

WACO v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

MIGRATION - appeal - a denial of natural justice occurred where the Refugee Review Tribunal found that documents that were potentially corroborative of a critical aspect of the appellant's claims were not genuine but failed to give the appellant an opportunity to be heard on this issue.

Braganza v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2

MIGRATION - whether MRT inflexibly applied departmental policy and failed to give real and genuine consideration to the merits of the appellant's case - MRT correctly understood the role of policy in decision-making process - MRT's decision not affected by an error of law - no need to consider whether jurisdictional error

NADO v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

MIGRATION - appeal from a decision of a primary judge affirming decision of Refugee Review Tribunal - whether jurisdictional error existed in the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal

Lobo v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

MIGRATION - judicial review - Migration Review Tribunal - visa grant criteria - application by Tribunal of departmental policy - erroneously narrow construction of visa grant criteria in departmental policy - misconstruction of visa grant criterion by Migration Review Tribunal - jurisdictional error - privative clause - principles governing application of privative clause - requirement for reconciliation of privative clause and limitations and conditions under Act - misapplication of visa grant criteria constituting jurisdictional error - Business Skills (Residence) (Class BH) visa) - visa grant criterion - `direct ... and continuous involvement in the management of ... business' - `... making decisions that affected the overall direction and performance of ... business' - appeal allowed - certiorari and mandamus issued

Wickramasinghe v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affa

1 These are two related appeals from orders made by Branson J on 16 July 2002. Her Honour dismissed applications for judicial review of decisions of the Migration Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") affirming decisions by the delegate of the respondent Minister to refuse Family (Residence) (Class AO) visas to the applicants, their respective spouses and children: Wickramasinghe v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 916 and Wickramasinghe v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 917. Ms Diluka Wijayakoon ("the nominator") had nominated each applicant for a Family (Residence) (Class AO) visa on the basis that each was a "special need relative". Ms Dinithie Wickramasinghe is the older sister of the nominator, while Mr Dilanka Wickramasinghe is her twin brother.

2 The applicants each contended before the Tribunal that their sister's psychological and emotional needs constituted each of them her "special need relative". The relevant elements of the definition of "special need relative" were contained in Migration Regulation 1.03 which provided that a "special need relative" is one who is "willing and able to give substantial and continuing assistance" to a relative (who is a citizen or resident) who "has a permanent or long-term need for assistance because of death, disability, prolonged illness or other serious circumstances affecting the citizen or resident personally".

3 In each proceeding before the Tribunal a report was tendered from a psychologist, Mr Eddy Kleynhans, one dated 14 October 1997 and the other dated (apparently erroneously) 22 February 1997. Mr Kleynhans' reports described the nominator as highly vulnerable to stress, which in turn has had a detrimental effect on her mental health and her marriage. The reports noted that the nominator and her applicant sister have shared a close bond from an early age, though the nominator felt abandoned when her sister moved to Australia in 1994. Mr Kleynhans also described the nominator as emotionally dependent upon her applicant brother, stating that her leaving him behind in Sri Lanka in 1996 had caused her "considerable anxiety and psychological pain" (see the Tribunal's reasons in Mr Wickramasinghe's application at [11]). While Mr Kleynhans' reports indicated that he had suggested that the nominator should seek help from other health professionals in 1997 or 1998, it does not appear that she did so. The Tribunal found itself unable to accept Mr Kleynhans' attribution to the nominator in those reports of serious or extreme results in depression and anxiety tests, regarding those as indicators only which were not supported by other professional evidence and were contradicted by the evidence of the nominator's having undertaken TAFE study.

WAKH v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2003] FCAFC 159 (3

MIGRATION - appeal - whether decision of Refugee Review Tribunal based on a particular fact which did not exist - `fresh' evidence on appeal insufficient to support the ground

NAFG v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

MIGRATION - where Refugee Review Tribunal found applicant had right to reside in, enter and re-enter third country - whether decision involved jurisdictional error

MIGRATION - Refugees Convention - nature and existence of protection obligations - "safe third country" - right to re-enter - refoulement - whether Australia has "protection obligations" to applicant for refugee status who has "effective protection" in a third country

NAGV v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

1 On 27 June 2003, the Full Court, by majority, ordered that the appeal be dismissed. I dissented and would have upheld the appeal. In my reasons, I indicated that I was of the view that the decision of an earlier Full Court in Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Thiyagarajah (1997) 80 FCR 543 (`Thiyagarajah') was wrongly decided. The majority, Finn and Conti JJ, agreed that Thiyagarajah was wrongly decided but concluded that, because of the jurisprudence that had developed on the basis of Thiyagarajah, it would not be appropriate to depart from what had been regarded as settled law.

2 In the course of my reasons for judgment, I said (at [32]) that `Australia has not withdrawn its reservations with respect to Art 28 and Art 32 of the Refugees Convention'. References to Australia's reservation of Art 32 were also made at [33], [38], [40], [59], [60], [61] and [62]. I also observed that the attention of von Doussa J had apparently not been drawn to the fact that Australia had reserved Art 32 and that his Honour's reasoning had proceeded on the basis that Australia had the obligation that would arise under Art 32. It now emerges that his Honour was perfectly correct in proceeding on that basis.

Ayan v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2

1 On 5 December 2001 the respondent Minister exercised a discretion under subs 501(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the "Act") to cancel the appellant's visa. The appellant was twenty five years of age at the time of the cancellation of his visa. He arrived in this country as an infant of six months of age. His other personal and family circumstances are summarised in the reasons for judgment of Allsop J published on 14 February 2003. The reasons of the Court today should be read with, and against the background of, the reasons of Sackville J and Allsop J published on that date.

2 Pursuant to orders made by the Court on 19 March 2003, the respondent provided the appellant with written reasons for his decision of 5 December 2001. These reasons were, without objection, placed in evidence before us.

3 The primary judge dismissed the challenge to the exercise of the respondent's discretion, as that challenge was then formulated. The appeal, as finally constituted and argued, raised two grounds not argued before the primary judge. No objection was taken by the respondent to the raising of these fresh issues by the filing of a second further amended notice of appeal.

4 The two issues raised were framed in terms of procedural fairness. The first concerned one discrete part of the respondent's reasons. The appellant contended that the respondent was obliged to found his decision on evidence; that this obligation is an aspect of his duty to accord procedural fairness; and that a breach of the obligation constitutes a jurisdictional error such as to justify the grant of a writ of prohibition.

SFGB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:
SFGB

APPELLANT


AND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

SDAF v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

MIGRATION - protection visa - Federal Magistrates Court dismissed application to set aside decision of Refugee Review Tribunal - appeal - orders sought by consent - need for Tribunal to be told nature of agreed defects in its reasons

APPEAL - allowed by consent - proper form of order - exercise of constitutional writs jurisdiction

SBBG v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

MIGRATION - judicial review - jurisdiction of the Federal Court - jurisdictional error - whether NAAV still good law - meaning of `persecution' - `general laws' - prejudgment - repetition of same factual error in different cases - whether appeal court should determine for itself whether there is jurisdictional error.

SDAQ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

MIGRATION - Application for refugee status - meaning of "refugee" - "fear of persecution" - subjective and objective elements - alleged failure to consider facts not specifically identified by appellant

Phuc v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2

MIGRATION - application to "appeal" from a Ministerial decision to cancel the appellant's visa - whether application competent - whether s 477 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) applied to the decision- whether Minister failed to consider a fundamental issue - whether failure to accord natural justice or exercise jurisdiction

Scargill v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2

MIGRATION - visa subclass 806 - family visa - Migration Review Tribunal - meaning of `usually resides' - constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction under s 65(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) - decision not a privative clause decision - appeal allowed.

Kosi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]


1 This is an appeal from the decision of Moore J of 6 December 2002. His Honour dismissed the appellant's application for review of the decision of Migration Review Tribunal (the `Tribunal') made on 27 September 2002. The Tribunal had refused the appellant's application for a bridging visa.

2 The subclass relevant to the application was subclass 050, which refers to a Bridging (General) Visa. The appellant satisfied certain of the key criteria for such a visa, but two issues remained for the Tribunal's consideration. It was necessary for it to consider what conditions were appropriate to be attached to the visa, if it were granted, and whether the appellant would meet those conditions. The latter was especially important in view of the appellant's quite lengthy history of being granted bridging visas to depart Australia and not complying with them. On the last occasion her non-compliance had resulted in the forfeiture of monies, some $2,000, which had been provided by others by way of security, to meet the condition of the visa.

3 The Tribunal considered that the appellant's history indicated that she had a strong desire to remain in Australia and showed that she would breach conditions and break the migration laws to do so. It could not be concluded, it determined, that the requirement of security, regardless of the level of it, as a condition of her visa, would influence her to comply.

NATL v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

MIGRATION - refusal of protection visa - appeal - particulars provided to applicant in respect of evidence from gymnasium proprietor - no jurisdictional error for failure to provide particulars under s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) as applicant was fairly informed of the information considered to be adverse - provision of evidence not required - no breach of natural justice as applicant had opportunity to deal with the particulars - evidence from Iranian community not sufficiently operative in the mind of the Tribunal to require giving of particulars - no breach of natural justice as appellant was aware of the matters put against him

SDAE v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

MIGRATION - refugee application by Iranian national - Refugee Review Tribunal - whether failure to consider all `integers' of claim - whether failure to consider elements of claim cumulatively

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 206 CLR 323 referred to

SFTB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

MIGRATION - proceedings by minor against respondent Minister - Minister occupies position of guardian under Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946 (Cth) - scope of Minister's obligations - procedural unfairness - where minor has no legal representation - jurisdictional error - where Refugee Review Tribunal considered independent country information received after hearing - whether fear of persecution `well-founded'

Shrestha v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2

1 This is an appeal from a judgment of Hill J dismissing with costs an application under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) for relief in respect of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal (`the Tribunal') made on 17 July 2002. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the respondent (the Minister) to cancel a student visa granted to the appellant. That visa was granted on 9 July 1999 and was due to expire on 2 September 2000. The delegate cancelled the visa on 14 February 2000 because the appellant had not complied with condition 8202.

2 That condition required the holder of a student visa to attend at least 80% of classes and tutorials scheduled for his or her registered course. The appellant was enrolled at an institution for a course that ran from 2 August 1999 to 28 July 2000. The Tribunal found that the appellant breached condition 8202 in the period from 2 August 1999 to 10 December 1999. Hill J held that, although the Tribunal did not make an express finding that the appellant's enrolment was cancelled on 10 December 1999, the Tribunal's conclusion was predicated upon the finding that that course had terminated by 10 December 1999.

Gomes v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003

1 The appeal to this Court is against a dismissal by the learned primary judge of an application to the Court following the filing by the respondent of a notice of objection to competency. It is now conceded on behalf of the respondent that the application to the court was competent. A decision of the High Court touching on this issue has been published since the learned primary judge's order was made.

2 The respondent nonetheless invites the Court to dismiss the appeal on the basis that the application itself is patently without merit. No application has at any time been made to the Court for the summary dismissal of the application on the ground that it discloses no reasonable basis.

NADF v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

1 This is an appeal from a Judge of this Court who dismissed the appellant's application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal: NADF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 1569.

2 The appellant was not legally represented before his Honour, or before us.

3 The appellant's claims for refugee status, the course the proceedings took before the Tribunal and the Tribunal's reasons for affirming the decision not to grant the appellant a protection visa are fully set out in his Honour's judgment.

4 In brief, the appellant claimed that he had been an executive in a Chinese corporation and had been responsible for the investment of $US 1 million for a proposed joint venture with a Chilean firm. That firm had cancelled the project and had refused to refund the money. The appellant claimed that because of this he would be imprisoned if he were returned to China.

NAPL v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

1 The Appellant is an Indian national of Tamil extraction who claims to be entitled to the grant of an Australian Protection Visa. His application was refused by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and by the Refugee Review Tribunal. Wilcox J, in this court, dismissed an application for review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal.

2 Wilcox J accepted a submission put on behalf of the applicant that the Refugee Review Tribunal had failed to deal with the applicant's claim that he was at risk of persecution by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam ("LTTE"). He concluded that this failure amounted to jurisdictional error. He further concluded that, were it not for the provisions of s 474 of the Migration Act 1958, he would have upheld the applicant's claim.

3 Wilcox J gave his decision on 9 October 2002. The decision was accordingly given before the decision of the High Court of Australia Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth of Australia (2003) 195 ALR 24 ("S157").

SBBA v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

MIGRATION - whether there was a denial of procedural fairness - whether the Tribunal failed to consider a substantive matter arising from the evidence before it - whether the inability to sue for civil damages or receive `blood money' amounts to persecution - allegation of bias - where the Refugee Review Tribunal preferred independent country information to the evidence of the appellant

Chow v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

MIGRATION - appeal from decision of single judge dismissing application for review of decision of Migration Review Tribunal affirming decision not to grant a Change in Circumstance (Residence) (Class AG), Subclass 806 visa - whether Migration Review Tribunal erred in not considering whether the appellant's father and stepmother had a `permanent or long-term need' for `substantial and continuing assistance' - where Migration Review Tribunal found that the appellant's father and stepmother had `prolonged illness' - where Migration Review Tribunal considered whether the appellant was `willing and able to provide substantial and continuing assistance' - no error established - appeal dismissed

VKAV v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

MIGRATION - whether appellant's protection visa application was invalid, for non-compliance with requirement that an applicant make "specific claims under the Refugees Convention"

SCAX v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

1 This is an appeal from a judgment of O'Loughlin J, given on 28 November 2002, in which his Honour dismissed an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") made on 18 February 2002. By that decision, the Tribunal affirmed a decision of the delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs ("the Minister") to refuse the appellant a protection visa.

SGSB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

1 This is an appeal from a judgment of Mansfield J dismissing an application under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the RRT") given on 16 September 2002. The RRT affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister dated 18 June 2002 refusing to grant the appellant a protection visa.

Wu v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] F

1 This is an appeal by Mr Gui Rong Wu ("the appellant") from a judgment of Sackville J of 10 October 2002 dismissing an application under s 39B(1) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) seeking writs of mandamus, prohibition and certiorari in respect of the decision of the Migration Review Tribunal of 4 March 2002. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate of the Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs ("the Minister") that the appellant was not entitled to a Change of Circumstances (Residence) class AG (sub-class 806-Family) visa. While Sackville J determined that the Tribunal had erred in several respects, including denying the appellant procedural fairness, the appellant was unsuccessful because of the operation of s 474 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This conclusion was reached because his Honour was bound to give effect to the judgment of the Full Federal Court in NAAV v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 228 concerning the reach of s 474.

SCAT v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

MIGRATION - judicial review - protection visa - whether Refugee Review Tribunal failed to have regard to an integer of the appellant's claim - whether such failure amounts to jurisdictional error - whether psychological harm may be "serious harm" within meaning of s 91R Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 91R, 474

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 39B

NAAP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

MIGRATION - protection visa - decision of Refugee Review Tribunal - whether Tribunal failed to exercise jurisdiction - whether "jurisdictional unreasonableness" - whether poor decision-making can demonstrate a lack of bona fides - whether a single erroneous finding of fact can constitute jurisdictional error

Koulaxazov v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs

MIGRATION - appeal from single judge of Federal Court dismissing application to review decision of Migration Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") to affirm refusal of Minister to grant appellant Special Eligibility (Residence) (Class AO) visa - claim that appellant was special need relative - nominator for visa was appellant's 82 year old mother - claim that Tribunal and primary judge did not consider "other serious circumstances" of test in Reg 1.03 - "other serious circumstances" such as disabilities and prolonged illnesses were said to demonstrate that appellant was a special need relative - findings of Tribunal and primary judge did substantially address nature and scope of "other serious circumstances" - no shortcomings in the reasoning process - privative clause in any even considered - no jurisdictional error - even if Craig type error established this would not found relief - Full Court's decision in NAAV should not be disregarded beyond what has necessarily been stipulated in S157.

VAAC v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

IMMIGRATION - application for protection visa - where Refugee Review Tribunal failed to provide applicant with information adverse to his interests on which it relied in making its decision - whether failure constitutes a breach of s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 - whether information specifically about applicant or about a class of persons - whether applicant denied procedural fairness - jurisdictional error.

IMMIGRATION - REVIEW - whether the Court should refer the matter to the Tribunal constituted by the member who made the previous decision

APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - new ground of appeal - factors to consider in deciding whether to allow new ground to be raised - whether additional evidence required -interests of justice.

NAFC v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

MIGRATION - appellant in immigration detention - application for injunction to prevent removal from Sydney to Woomera or Baxter pending hearing before Refugee Review Tribunal in Sydney - primary Judge refused injunction - appeal moot because Tribunal hearing completed in meanwhile - reference to question whether s 256 of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) imposes obligation on Minister

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - appellant in immigration detention - application for injunction to prevent removal from Sydney to Woomera or Baxter pending hearing before Refugee Review Tribunal in Sydney - primary Judge refused injunction - appeal moot because Tribunal hearing completed in meanwhile - reference to question whether s 256 of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) imposes obligation on Minister

SBAZ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

MIGRATION - claim to be refugee from Afghanistan dismissed by Tribunal mainly upon basis of linguistic report - appeal from Tribunal to single judge of Federal Court dismissed upon ground of absence of Tribunal error - appeal to Full Court dismissed upon basis of absence of ground of appeal propounded - unnecessary to consider implications of statutory privative clause - implications of delay in hearing by Full Court where no ground of appeal propounded in notice of appeal.

Siddique v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2

MIGRATION - student visa - breach of condition 8202

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 35, 41, 65

Migration Legislation Amendment (Overseas Students) Act 2000 (Cth)

SGQB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

1 This is an appeal from the dismissal on 23 August 2002 by a single judge of this Court, Mansfield J, of an application to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal, ("the Tribunal") given on 28 June 2001. The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent given on 28 March refusing to grant to the applicant a protection visa for which he had applied on 20 January 2001, shortly after his arrival in Australia under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act").

2 In the course of his Honour's reasons for judgment, Mansfield J considered criticism that had been made of the quality of interpretation that had been afforded the present appellant in the hearing before the Tribunal. In a careful and detailed judgment, his Honour reached the conclusion expressed in par 18 of his reasons, that:

Untan v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003

MIGRATION - immigration detention - release from detention pending appeal - discretionary factors for Court's consideration - where threat to Minister's life made.

PRACTICE - Federal Court of Australia - interlocutory orders - variation of interlocutory orders made by Full Court of Federal Court of Australia - whether variation can be made by Full Court - whether consideration can be given to factors not before Full Court when orders first made.

Ayan v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2

APPEAL - order sought as an exercise of power under s 23 of the Federal Court of Australia Act in aid of the appellate jurisdiction of the Court for delivery of reasons by Minister under par 501G(1)(e) of the Migration Act in respect of a decision under s 501 of that Act in connection with and ancillary to the appeal process.

WAGR v Minister For Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

IMMIGRATION - appeal dismissed - refugee - Refugee Review Tribunal - Migration Act 1958 (Cth) subs 476(1) - jurisdictional error - well-founded fear of persecution - Tribunal need not speculate about possible past events where there is no uncertainty in the mind of the decision-maker - no uncertainty attributed where none apparent in reasons for decision - uncertainty may be found where facts are inherently difficult to ascertain - credibility - Tribunal based its conclusions on positive evidence - conclusions not based on speculation

Pojani v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 1283

PATENTS - validity of claimed invention for measuring glucose levels in blood - novelty - sufficiency of specification - ambiguity of - meaning of the word "comprising" and the word "or" - manner of manufacture - obviousness - prior art relating to the subject - whether claims fairly based on the complete specification - whether prior claiming is available as a ground of revocation under the Patents Act 1990 (Cth)

SBAC v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002]

2 The appellant is an Iranian citizen who arrived in Australia with his wife and three children on 31 December 2000. The appellant applied for a protection visa on 13 February 2001. A delegate of the respondent refused this application on 13 March 2001. The Refugee Review Tribunal (`the Tribunal') affirmed the decision of the delegate on 23 November 2001. The appellant's application for an order under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) (`the Judiciary Act') to have the decision of the Tribunal set aside was dismissed by the primary judge on 10 May 2002. The appellant appeals from the decision of the primary judge.

Wong v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002]

1 This is an appeal from a Judge of this Court (Tamberlin J) dismissing an application by the appellant (Mr Wong) for relief under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) ("the Judiciary Act"). The relief sought is, substantially, the setting aside of a decision of the Respondent Minister ("the Minister") refusing Mr Wong's application for a subclass 560 student visa under s 501(3) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act").

2 Mr Wong is a national of the Peoples' Republic of China with residency status in Hong Kong. He is married and his wife and children presently reside in Hong Kong. He entered Australia on his own on 22 August 1999 as the holder of a visitor's visa. Shortly after his arrival he applied for a student visa to enable him to undertake a business management course. That application was successful and he was granted a sub-class 560 Student Visa which remained valid until 5 January 2001.

Long v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002]

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - part-heard appeal from interlocutory judgment adjourned - appeal from judgment dismissing the substantive application pending - whether the Court should hear a motion in the appeal from the judgment in the substantive application at the same time as the part-heard appeal - whether the Court should grant a permanent stay of the part-heard appeal - whether the appeal is moot or futile.

WAFH v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002]

MIGRATION - refugee - whether Refugee Review Tribunal made a jurisdictional error - applicant claimed to have well-founded fear of persecution on political grounds in Iran from State tolerated organisations including Hezbollah - whether Tribunal failed to consider this claim.

SGFB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002]

MIGRATION - appeal from decision of single judge affirming decision of Refugee Review Tribunal to refuse the grant of protection visa - whether appellant was an Afghan citizen - whether Court erred in failing to admit further affidavit material - whether fresh evidence would have meant that there was no evidence or other material to justify the making of the Tribunal's decision - whether the Court erred in failing to find a jurisdictional error - appeal dismissed.

Kolotau v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [20


1 Although the notice of appeal contains eight grounds, the appellants have raised only three points. Two of those points, namely the matters raised in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the notice of appeal, are conceded by Mr Kolotau, who has appeared for himself and his wife, to be factually wrong. We need not trouble with them anymore.

2 The remaining five grounds, raise a question of constitutional power. This is most precisely stated in ground 4, namely:

"That it is beyond the power of the Commonwealth to enact legislation under the Migration Act pursuant to sections 474, 475 and 476, having an unjust effect on individual and citizens of Australia."

3 The constitutional validity of this legislation was considered by a Full Court of this Court in NAAV v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 228. The Full Court unanimously held the legislation is not constitutionally invalid. This Court is bound by that decision.

NAJT v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002]

1 This is an appeal against a decision of Madgwick J given on 11 July 2002. Madgwick J upheld an objection to competency filed by the respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs.

2 The basis for his Honour's decision was that the Court had no jurisdiction because of the terms of s 476(2) of the Migration Act 1958. That subsection says:

"(2) Despite any other law (including ... sections 39B ... of the Judiciary Act 1903, ...), the Federal Court do[es] not have any jurisdiction in respect of a decision of the Minister not to exercise, or not to consider the exercise, of the Minister's power under ... section 48B [or section 417]."

3 In the present case, the complaint is that the Minister should have considered the exercise of his power under s 48B or s 417. It seems to us clear that s 476(2) covers the situation.

4 The point is taken in the notice of appeal, although in an elliptic way, that ss 474, 475 and 476 of the Act are not constitutionally valid. Section 78B notices were given to the Attorneys-General in relation to this point before the hearing at first instance. No Attorney-General sought to intervene. In this Court, the issue of the constitutional validity of those sections is concluded by the decision of the Full Court in NAAV v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 228.

Tavalu v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [200

2 The notice of appeal sets out five grounds. Some of these are not intelligible. Some are plainly incorrect. For example, it is not correct to say that Moore J found that the delegate was not acting in good faith in making the decision. Nor does it appear that Moore J refused time to file and serve notices pursuant to s 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903. In any event, no constitutional question was raised.

3 When asked to elaborate on the grounds, the appellant was only able to say that she could not believe the Minister's decision was correct because he had refused to consider intervening in her case. The appellant also drew attention to the fact that the letter notifying the decision was not signed personally by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs ("the Minister").

WACR v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002]

MIGRATION - appeal dismissed - application for judicial review dismissed - refugee - Refugee Review Tribunal - Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 474 - privative clause - findings of fact challenged - no grounds for review - language analysis - explanation of inconsistencies in evidence

Tuuhoko v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [20

MIGRATION - jurisdiction of Federal Court - constitutional validity of provisions of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) - powers of Minister pursuant to s 351 Migration Act 1958 (Cth) - public interest

WAAJ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002]

MIGRATION - Refugee application by Iranian national - Whether sexual activity with wife of Pasdaran official required Tribunal to consider possibility of persecution for imputed political opinion - Whether Tribunal erred in law in relation to applicant's claimed conversion to Christianity - Whether Tribunal was obliged to notify applicant of "country information" in relation to treatment of apostates.

WAAD v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 399 (6

MIGRATION - judicial review - Refugee Review Tribunal - protection visa - application of "real chance" test - mistaken finding of fact - Tribunal's failure to consider possible occurrences

SCAS v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002]

MIGRATION - allegation of bad faith and lack of bona fides - no lack of bona fides made out - role of lawyer in advancing an allegation of lack of bona fides.

SAAY v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002]

1 This is an appeal from a judge of the Court dismissing an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the RRT") affirming a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

2 The decision of the delegate was given on 31 August 2001. The appellant applied to the RRT on 3 September 2001 for a review of the decision. The RRT affirmed the delegate's decision on 26 October 2001. The application for judicial review was filed on 23 November 2001 and the primary judge's judgment was given on 17 June 2002.

NACL v Minister For Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002]

1 The appellant is a citizen of Bangladesh who arrived in Australia on 17 January 1998. On 2 February 1998 he applied for a protection visa. He claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution in Bangladesh for reasons of political opinion within the meaning of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28 July 1951 as amended by the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees done at New York on 31 January 1967 ("the Refugee Convention"). A delegate of the respondent refused the application on 11 March 1998 and the appellant applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal (`the Tribunal') for review of the delegate's decision on 1 April 1998.

Huo v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002]

MIGRATION - judicial review - application for business visa - procedural fairness - whether right to a further hearing under s 360 Migration Act where Tribunal receives further information subsequent to hearing - Hickman conditions not satisfied - whether relief pursuant to s 39B Judiciary Act available

NADP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002]

1 The appellant, a citizen of Bangladesh, whose application for a protection visa was refused by the Refugee Review Tribunal, appeals against a decision of a judge of this Court dismissing his application to this Court under s 39B(1) the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth).

2 The decision of the Tribunal was a privative clause decision for the purposes of s 474(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The judgment of the primary judge was given prior to the decision of the Full Court of this Court in NAAV v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 228. Given the divergent views that were at that time expressed by single judges as to the effect of s 474(1), His Honour first considered the substance of the s 39B application. His conclusion in that matter made it unnecessary to decide whether s 474(1) would, in the circumstances, have precluded any grant of relief under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 for an alleged denial of procedural fairness.

Procedural Fairness

Alkhousi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2

2 This is an appeal from a judgment of Cooper J in which his Honour dismissed the appellant's application to review a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal ("the MRT"). The MRT decided that the appellant was not entitled to a Partner (Migrant) (Class BC) visa ("the visa"). The application before his Honour was filed on 14 January 2002. It was dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"), which included the amendments effected by the Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Act 2001 (Cth), which took effect on 2 October 2001.

Factual background

3 The appellant is a citizen of Syria. He married an Australian citizen in Damascus on 29 June 1996. On 10 December 1996 he applied for the visa and also for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa to allow him to enter Australia and remain, pending the determination of his application for the visa. The provisional visa was granted on 7 June 1997. The appellant first entered Australia on 6 August 1997 but did not take up permanent residence until July 1998.

Luu v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 369 (27

MIGRATION - deportation order - deportee in immigration detention pending deportation - decision not to revoke deportation order - decision not to release deportee from immigration detention pending deportation - whether deportee was accorded procedural fairness in the making of the decisions - whether there was evidence upon which a risk of deportee absconding if released from immigration detention could be found - whether decisions so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have made them.

MIGRATION - deportee in immigration detention - decision not to release deportee from immigration detention pending deportation - whether protection of Australian community a relevant consideration to decision.

MIGRATION - deportee in immigration detention - decision not to release deportee from immigration detention pending deportation - whether continued detention was indeterminate or punitive and was thereby in contravention of Migration Act 1958 - whether continued detention was indeterminate preventative or punitive and was thereby in contravention of Articles 7, 9 and 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 so that such contraventions were relevant matters which had to be taken into account in making the decision.

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth)

SAAZ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002]

1 When this appeal was called for hearing, the appellant indicated to the Court that the judgment of Mansfield J had not been translated for him. After some discussion, the appellant sought an adjournment of the appeal to allow the judgment to be translated and to enable him to make submissions concerning its correctness or otherwise. The respondent Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs ("the Minister") opposed the adjournment.

SBBS v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002]

MIGRATION - Whether appellant denied procedural fairness before the RRT - Whether a denial of procedural fairness resulted in jurisdictional error - Effect of the privative clause.

WAAB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002]

1 This appeal is from the judgment of French J given on 19 June 2002 in which he dismissed the appellant's application for judicial review of an adverse decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") made on 28 September 2001. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the respondent not to grant to the appellant a protection visa on the ground that he did not satisfy the criteria set out in s 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act").

SAAX v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002]

1 This is an appeal from a decision of O'Loughlin J given on 17 May 2002. His Honour dismissed an application under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) to set aside a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) given on 26 October 2001. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent of 21 August 2001 not to grant to the appellant a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). The appellant applied for a protection visa under the Act on 19 July 2001 following his arrival in Australia some months earlier.

2 The decision of the Tribunal turned upon whether it was satisfied the appellant was a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees as Amended by the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (the Convention): s 36(2) of the Act. Resolution of that issue depended in turn upon whether the Tribunal was satisfied that the appellant is a refugee as defined in Art 1A(2) of the Convention, that is a person who was unwilling to return to and avail himself of the protection of his country of nationality by reason of a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

NACQ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002]

1 This is an appeal from a decision of Beaumont J (the primary judge) made on 11 April 2002. His Honour dismissed an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) made on 11 October 2001. By that decision, the Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (the Minister), not to grant the appellant a Protection (Class XA) Visa.

NAAH v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002]

MIGRATION - protection visa - decision of Refugee Review Tribunal - "lack of reasonableness as to jurisdiction" - whether failure to be satisfied as to criteria can be judged by standard of reasonableness - whether tribunal's conclusions as to facts against all of evidence, or not based on probative material or logical reasoning

SDAN v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2

MIGRATION - appeal from primary Judge dismissing application for review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal ("Tribunal") - application to amend Notice of Appeal - proposed grounds of appeal relate to breach of s 418(3) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and lack of bona fides by Tribunal - relevant considerations not taken into account - whether a lack of bona fide attempt by the Tribunal to exercise power - whether leave should be granted for appellant to amend Notice of Appeal

VAS v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002]

MIGRATION - "no evidence" ground - whether "no evidence" ground can be made out when some evidence does exist - where concession made by appellant that a basis does exist for finding - where evidence in support of finding is slight.

MIGRATION - procedural fairness - whether appellant denied opportunity to comment on independent country information - where it is uncertain whether Department sent Part B documents to Tribunal.

SAAT v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2

MIGRATION - appeal from a decision of primary Judge dismissing application for review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal ("Tribunal") affirming decision of delegate not to grant appellant a protection visa - appellant sought leave to amend Notice of Appeal - ground not raised before primary Judge - proposed ground of appeal alleges lack of bona fides by Tribunal - consideration of merits of proposed ground of appeal - lack of bona fides not demonstrated - whether leave should be granted for appellant to amend Notice of Appeal

Lopez v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002

1 This is an appeal from a judgment of a single judge of the Court, delivered on 21 June 2002. The judge dismissed an application made under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), seeking orders in the nature of constitutional writs to quash a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal ("the MRT"). The MRT's decision, dated 27 February 2002, affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister refusing to grant a family residence (Class AO) visa.

2 The application for review of the MRT's decision was filed with the Court on 27 March 2002. The application for review is governed by the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"), as it stands following the amendments to Part VIII of the Act which were introduced by the Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Act 2001 (Cth), and which came into effect on 2 October 2001.

WACH v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 338 (8

MIGRATION - Appeal from single Judge dismissing an application for review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal ("RRT") - RRT affirmed decision of delegate not to grant protection visa to appellant - RRT not satisfied as to credibility of appellant's claims of harassment by Syrian authorities - where appellant will face criminal penalty upon return to Syria - where no reviewable error of law found by primary Judge - application of Article 1(D) of the Refugee Convention - whether expression "ipso facto" in Article 1(D) confers an entitlement on appellant to a protection visa.

Ayan v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002]

1 When this matter was called for hearing, counsel for the appellant, Mr Robinson, moved on a notice of motion filed 31 October 2002. In that motion the appellant sought leave to file in Court an amended notice of appeal. The motion also seeks leave to file in Court an amended application for an order of review.

2 Mr Robinson subsequently handed up a document headed, "Grounds of Judicial Review" that consolidates the grounds upon which the appellant now seeks to rely on the appeal. Mr Robinson accepted that a number of the proposed grounds of appeal were not raised before the primary Judge. One of the grounds that is sought to be relied upon by the appellant raised a constitutional issue and is framed in the following terms:

WAEI v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2

MIGRATION - Appeal from single Judge dismissing an application for review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal ("RRT") - RRT affirmed decision of delegate not to grant protection visa to appellant - RRT not satisfied that appellant had experienced treatment amounting to persecution for a Convention reason - application of Article 1(D) of the Refugee Convention - whether expression "ipso facto" in Article 1(D) confers an entitlement on appellant to a protection visa

WAED v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 333

MIGRATION - Appeal from single Judge dismissing an application for review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal ("RRT") - RRT affirmed decision of delegate not to grant protection visa to applicant - application of Article 1(D) of Refugee Convention - whether expression "ipso facto" in Article 1(D) confers an entitlement on the appellant to a protection visa

WACG v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 332

MIGRATION - Appeal from single Judge dismissing an application for review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal ("RRT") - RRT affirmed decision of delegate not to grant protection visa to appellant - RRT not satisfied that claims made by appellant relating to harassment by Syrian authorities resulted from racial or political prejudice - no reviewable error of law found by primary Judge - application of Article 1(D) of the Refugee Convention - whether expression "ipso facto" in Article 1(D) confers an entitlement on appellant to a protection visa.

Tian v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2

MIGRATION � appeal � visas � student visa � cancellation of visa � conditions on which visa granted � breach of conditions of visa � where visa must be cancelled if �prescribed circumstances� exist � notice issued under Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (Cth) � appellant in breach of conditions � breach reported to Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs � delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs found appellant in breach of Condition 8202(3)(a) which required appellant to attend 80 percent of contact hours at secondary school � appellant sought review in Migration Review Tribunal � Migration Review Tribunal disagreed with delegate�s decision but concluded that the appellant breached Condition 8202(3)(b) in that the appellant had not achieved an academic result �at least satisfactory� � whether a letter from the appellant�s secondary school offering readmission to the appellant was certification that the appellant had achieved an academic result that was �at least satisfactory� � whether delegate had erred by inquiring whether the appellant had made �satisfactory academic progress� � interpretation � whether substantial compliance with Condition 8202 sufficient.

SAAE v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002]

MIGRATION - protection visa - whether Refugee Review Tribunal's decision affected by actual bias - whether tribunal made finding on facts - observation that facts "implausible"

WAEO v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 306 (8

1 The appellant, who is now aged twenty-six, arrived in Australia without appropriate documents approximately twelve months ago. He said that he left Iran in April 2000 and that his first interview by an officer of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs was conducted on 29 June 2000. He applied for a protection visa but his application was refused by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs ("the Minister"). His subsequent applications for a review, first by the Refugee Review Tribunal and later by a judge of this court, French J, were both unsuccessful. He now seeks the intervention of this Court.

Lee v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002]

MIGRATION - appeal from single judge dismissing application for review of decision of Migration Review Tribunal - Tribunal had refused to consider application as appellant had lodged her application outside the statutory time requirements of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) - appellant did not receive letter advising of delegate's decision - evidence of letter sent within statutory time requirements

MIGRATION - Tribunals - purported decision of Migration Review Tribunal to refuse to consider appellant's application - decision made by Deputy Registrar - supposed delegation of power by Principal Member unlawful

WAFY v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002]

3 This is an appeal from a decision of Carr J given on 18 March 2002. His Honour dismissed an application by the appellant seeking review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal given on 4 September 2001 affirming an earlier decision of a delegate of the respondent refusing to grant to the appellant a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

NADR v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002]

MIGRATION - privative clause decision - refusal of protection visa by Refugee Review Tribunal - affirmed on application to primary Judge - whether denial of procedural fairness - whether appellant misled into believing Tribunal had read documents to which the original decision maker had referred - interpretation of s 474 Migration Act 1958 (Cth) according to Hickman principles - whether excludes procedural fairness - whether Tribunal's procedure shows lack of good faith

WAGF v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002]

MIGRATION - protection visa - appeal from single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia - leave to file amended notice of appeal relying on a recent decision of the High Court of Australia denied.

WAFS v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002]

MIGRATION - protection visa - where appellant claims to have been so weak from a hunger strike at the hearing before the Tribunal that a real hearing had not been conducted into his case - where it is likely that the appellant embarked on the hunger strike in an attempt to force an adjournment - whether Tribunal failed to address any of the appellant's claims - where the Tribunal was of the view that the appellant fabricated the claims which he advanced

SCAC v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002]

MIGRATION - refugees - protection visa - Albania - whether Refugee Review Tribunal's decision affected by actual bias - whether Tribunal erred in law in its assessment of activities of criminal gangs as not being Convention-related.

WAFB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2

MIGRATION - Appeal from single Judge - no grounds for appeal specified - no reviewable error

WAGJ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002]

MIGRATION - protection visa - appeal from dismissal of application for review under Pt 8 Migration Act 1958 (Cth) - whether Refugee Review Tribunal had committed an error of law or exceeded its jurisdiction in failing to consider whether to make enquiries pursuant to s 427(1)(d) of the Act - whether Tribunal required to consider whether it should make such enquiries necessary to establish whether the appellant had refrained from disclosing the nature and extent of association with the Mujahadeen on the basis of legal advice

WADL v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 276 (2

MIGRATION - protection visa - appeal from dismissal of application for review under Pt 8 Migration Act 1958 (Cth) - leave to amend notice of appeal - whether Refugee Review Tribunal based findings on particular facts which did not exist - whether comments or observations by Tribunal "facts" - whether jurisdictional error - whether actual bias - whether error of law

Thirukkumar v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC

MIGRATION - judicial review - protection visa - expert medical and psychological evidence - admissibility of expert - whether existence of medical conditions consistent with abuse - credibility of witness - whether taken into account - jurisdictional error - when failure to take into account relevant material amounts to jurisdictional error

Lu v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] F

MIGRATION � character test � decision of Minister under Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 501A(2) to set aside non-adverse decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal � substantial criminal record � cancellation of visa in national interest � departmental issues paper before Minister � misstatement in issues paper of appellant�s criminal record � relevant considerations � whether failure to consider accurate statement of appellant�s criminal record constituted jurisdictional error � whether errors so insignificant as could not materially have affected the decision

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW � relevant considerations � test stated by Mason J in Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24 � jurisdictional error

WAJW v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

MIGRATION � appeal � refusal to grant protection visa � appellant an Iranian and a Sabean Mandaen � whether s 91R of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) wrongly applied � whether failure to find specific treatment of appellant and her family � whether error in reliance on irrelevant material or failure to consider relevant material � whether breach of procedural fairness by failure to provide appellant with certain information

Howells v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

MIGRATION � statutory duty to give �written reasons� under s 501G � whether failure to provide reasons gives rise to grounds for review � whether respondent should be compelled to provide reasons ex post facto where no application was made at the time of the relevant decision requesting provisions of reasons � extent of discretion under s 501 to cancel visa � whether discretion unfettered � whether respondent fettered discretion in having regard to Direction No. 17 issued to decision-makers � no evidence respondent considered himself bound by Direction No. 17.

NALZ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

CITIZENSHIP AND MIGRATION -- refugees -- where persecution claimed as a result of imputed political opinion arising from appellant selling electrical goods to Sri Lankan nationals -- where nature of persecution claimed was illegitimate maltreatment by authorities -- whether asylum-seekers required or expected to modify behaviour or take reasonable steps to avoid persecutory harm -- whether there is a distinction between actual and imputed membership of a protected class of citizens under Refugee Convention.

SZAOG v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004

MIGRATION  appeal from decision of Federal Magistrates Court  protection visas  whether conscientious objection to military service may stem from or constitute a political opinion or religious view  whether compulsory military service may amount to persecution of the appellant  whether such claim had been made by appellant before the Refugee Review Tribunal  no such claim had been made by appellant before the Refugee Review Tribunal - failure by the Refugee Review Tribunal to make such a finding not a jurisdictional error  decision of the Federal Magistrates Court not affected by jurisdictional error  appeal dismissed.

Ogawa v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE � application for leave to appeal from interlocutory judgment � applicant unable to show sufficient doubt as to correctness of judgment � application refused

Herrera v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [20

MIGRATION � relevant consideration � asserted failure on the part of the Minister to consider appellant�s subjective state of mind at the time the visa cancelling offence was committed � consideration not compulsorily relevant � in any event, assertion not made out, inference could be drawn that the Minister considered the appellant�s state of mind � appeal dismissed

NBBZ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

MIGRATION � appeal from single judge � failure to take relevant consideration into account � whether speculation as to reason for deceit formed part of Refugee Review Tribunal�s reasoning � whether error in approach of trial judge

MIGRATION � appeal from single judge � obligation of Refugee Review Tribunal to treat applicants fairly � s 424A Migration Act 1958 (Cth) � questions to appellant at Tribunal hearing based on document disclosed to appellant after hearing � whether obligation to treat applicant fairly required document to be disclosed prior to hearing

QAAB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

MIGRATION � Protection (Class XA) visa � request to the Minister to exercise power under s 48B(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to allow a further application for a protection visa � Minister�s Guidelines � determination by the Minister in advance � effect of s 476(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) is to preclude Court from reviewing decision in question � no prospects of success

VWEF v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

1 The appellant is a national of Lithuania, who arrived in Australia on 29 June 2002. On the day that his visa was to expire he lodged an application for a protection visa.

2 The appellant claimed to be a member of a particular social group, homosexuals, and had a well-founded fear of persecution if he were to return to Lithuania. He claimed of social isolation and of being beaten on a few occasions on account of his sexual preference. He was reluctant to go to the police. He said that there would still be discrimination in Lithuania and that the decriminalisation of homosexuality and legislative provisions to protect homosexuals from discrimination and incitement of hatred would not change the attitude of the people. The government could not protect him.

3 The Refugee Review Tribunal (�the Tribunal�) noted the introduction of a criminal code in Lithuania in September 2000, which made it an offence to discriminate against a person because of their sexual orientation and an offence to deride or initiate discrimination or instigate hatred against a person because of their sexual orientation. Lithuania had also ratified the European Convention on Human Rights and most of the human rights treaties and international conventions on human rights, which had been incorporated as part of Lithuanian domestic law. Country information however suggested that there remained a degree of societal prejudice against sexual minorities in Lithuania.

NAYU v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2

1 Before the Court is an appeal from the judgment of Jacobson J delivered on 4 May 2004. His Honour dismissed an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) handed down on 31 January 2002. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, the respondent, refusing to grant the appellant a protection visa.

2 The appellant is a citizen of Nigeria. He is 40 years old, married and a Christian of Igbo ethnicity.

Claims Before the Tribunal

3 The appellant claimed a fear of persecution on the grounds of political opinion and race. He said he supported the Movement for the Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB). He claimed that he made financial contributions to MASSOB, and attended a flag raising ceremony to declare the state of Biafra on 29 May 2000. As a result of his involvement, he claimed, his parents were humiliated, his shop looted, and his wife beaten. He claimed the police were looking for him and wanted to arrest him because of his involvement with MASSOB. His claimed fear of persecution on the grounds of race derived from his Igbo ethnicity.

Singh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [

MIGRATION � visa � �special need relative� � Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), reg 1.03 � whether definition misapplied

Tran v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

2 This is an appeal in respect of a judgment of Weinberg J given on 29 April 2004. His Honour dismissed an application by the appellant pursuant to s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) and s 5(1) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth). The application sought to review a decision of a Deputy President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunals (�the Tribunal�) made on 10 July 2003. By that decision, the Tribunal affirmed a decision made by the respondent Minister on 28 January 2000 that the appellant should be deported pursuant to s 200 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (�the Act�).

STYB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

1 This matter is an appeal from a judgment of Selway J in which his Honour dismissed the appellant�s application to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the RRT"). The RRT decided that the appellant was not entitled to a protection visa by reference to the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees 1951, as amended by the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees 1967 ("the Convention"). The application before Selway J was one in which prerogative relief was sought against the respondent in respect of the appellant�s application for a protection visa.

NBBV v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

2 The appellant, a citizen of the People�s Republic of China, arrived in Australia on 8 January 2003. On 22 January 2003, he lodged an application for a Protection (Class XA) visa. On 18 February 2003, a delegate of the respondent (the "Minister") declined the application and on 14 March 2003, the appellant applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal (the "Tribunal") for review of that decision. The Tribunal affirmed the decision on 31 December 2003. On 19 February 2004, the appellant applied, pursuant to s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), for the issue of writs of certiorari and mandamus directed to the Tribunal. On 9 April 2004, the appellant filed an amended application for such writs, the grounds being:

Liu v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

1 Following argument in this matter we dismissed the appeal, ordering the appellant to pay the respondent�s costs thereof. We indicated that we would, at a later date, publish our reasons for so ordering. We now do so.

2 The appellant is a citizen of the People�s Republic of China. On 14 October 2002 she applied for a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa. On 2 November 2002, a delegate of the respondent (the "Minister") refused the application. The Migration Review Tribunal (the "Tribunal") affirmed that decision. The appellant then applied pursuant to s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) for review of the decision. The matter was heard before Sackville J at first instance. His Honour dismissed the application with costs. This is an appeal from that decision.

Potier v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [200

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - application for leave to appeal from interlocutory judgment that requirements of O 62 r 46(3)(d) not be waived - whether judgment attended with sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration by a Full Court - whether substantial injustice would result if leave were refused

NAVX v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

1 Following the hearing of this appeal, the Court dismissed it, ordering the appellant to pay the respondent�s costs thereof. We indicated that we would publish our reasons at a later date. We now do so.

2 The appellant is a Chinese national. He was born on 16 August 1963, is married and has a child. He entered Australia on 6 July 2002, holding a temporary business visa. The claimed purpose of his visit was to conduct business feasibility studies. On 17 July 2002, he applied for a Protection (Class XA) visa. On 13 August 2002 a delegate of the respondent (the "Minister") refused that application and on 19 August 2002 the appellant applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal for review of that decision. On 25 July 2003 that application was dismissed. The appellant then applied to this Court pursuant to s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) for review of the Tribunal�s decision. On 30 March 2004 Allsop J dismissed that application. This is an appeal from that decision.

VWST v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

MIGRATION � Appeal � no error disclosed � whether want of logic is available as a ground of judicial review

Akpata v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

1 The applicant has applied for a �parent 103 visa�. The applicant instituted proceedings in this Court seeking final and interlocutory injunctions to restrain and prevent the respondent (the Minister) from making any decision in relation to his application for that visa until certain proceedings in the Supreme Court of South Australia are finalised. The primary Judge dismissed the application for an interlocutory injunction. The applicant seeks leave to appeal from the decision of the primary Judge pursuant to s 24(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act, 1976 (Cth). For the reasons given below that application is refused.

2 On 26 July 1999 the applicant applied for a Parent (Migrant) Class AX (Subclass 103) (Parent) visa. That application was considered by the Minister personally. On 11 June, 2002, the Minister refused to grant that visa on the basis that the Minister was not satisfied that the applicant passed the character test: see s 501(1) of the Act. The effect of that decision, at least if it were valid, was to cancel the bridging visa then held by the applicant: see s 501F(3) of the Act. Consequently the applicant was treated as an �unlawful non citizen� and was taken into detention on 25 May 2004 pursuant to s 189 of the Act. The applicant instituted proceedings challenging the Minister�s decision under s 501 of the Act. He was ultimately successful in those proceedings: see Akpata v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 65 (Akpata) and the decision of the Minister refusing to grant the applicant a parent visa was quashed. The basis for that decision was that the applicant had not been afforded procedural fairness in the decision making process. The applicant was consequently released from detention.

NBCI v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

1 There is before the Court an appeal from a judgment of a single Judge dismissing an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") affirming a decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister refusing the appellant a protection visa. The learned primary Judge�s reasons were succinct and recited:

�When the matter came before me, counsel for the respondent appeared, as did the applicant, with the assistance of an interpreter. When asked what matters he wished to raise in relation to the proceedings, the applicant was unable to specify anything, and seemed to have elected not to speak, beyond asking me whether he could appeal from this decision.

NAXT v Minister For Immigration And Multicultural And Indigenous Affairs [2

MIGRATION - no issue of principle

STCB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2

MIGRATION � whether appellant a refugee � Albanian national � claim based on fear of revenge killing under blood feud � particular social group � whether the social group is family group or wider group � family as social group � whether appellant�s fear of persecution to be disregarded under s 91S of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

NABE v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (No 2)

MIGRATION � judicial review � protection visa � Refugee Review Tribunal � factual error � misunderstanding of evidence � whether failure to consider claim � whether jurisdictional error � obligation of Tribunal to consider claims arising on material before it � whether obligation to consider claim not expressly articulated � Sri Lankan Tamil � claim of persecution by government and by pro-government group � no express claim of lack of State protection with respect to pro-government group � erroneous conclusion by Tribunal that appellant claimed involvement with pro-government group � whether failure to consider claim � whether allegation of persecution by pro-government group carried implied claim of want of State protection � whether error within jurisdiction

SZBNG v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [

1 The matter before the Court is an appeal from a decision of a judge of this Court (Lindgren J), in which his Honour dismissed two proceedings that were then before him.

2 The first proceeding (NSD 121 of 2004) was an application for prerogative relief in relation to a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (�the RRT�) which affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (�the Minister�), the respondent to this appeal. The delegate had refused to grant to the appellant a protection visa. The RRT shared the view of the delegate that the appellant had not demonstrated he was a refugee within the meaning of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (�the Convention�).

VAT v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

MIGRATION � appeal � alleged jurisdictional error and lack of procedural fairness � questions to appellant alleged to suggest commission of bribery � questions said to be contrary to public policy � whether questions gave rise to failure to carry out function of review � whether questions affected Tribunal�s decision

Criminal Code Amendment (Bribery of Foreign Public Officials) Act 1999 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 36, 420, 424

Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (Opened for signature 28 July 1951. Entry into force 22 April 1954)
Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (Opened for signature 31 January 1967. Entry into force 13 December 1973)

SRFB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

MIGRATION � jurisdictional error - requirements in s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) � natural justice

STKB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

MIGRATION � Jurisdictional error � English �variable standard� of unreasonableness � fresh evidence

NAPS v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2

1 This is an appeal from a judgment of Allsop J delivered on 5 March 2004. His Honour dismissed an application for a review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal which affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent to refuse the appellant a protection visa. The appellant is a citizen of Sri Lanka who claimed a fear of persecution as a result of political activities in support of the UNP. The background and his claims are set out in both the decision of the Tribunal and the judgment of the primary judge and need not be repeated in these reasons.

Zubair v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [200

MIGRATION � student visa � invalid cancellation of visa by the Department of Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs � whether an invalid decision is �no decision at all� � whether merits review can be undertaken on an invalid decision � the role of the Migration Review Tribunal in reviewing decisions

NAZK v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

1 I agree with Madgwick J. As he has indicated, the written submission identified some grounds of appeal which, if made out, would have indicated jurisdictional error by the Refugee Review Tribunal (�the Tribunal�). Some of the language in the written submission was appropriate for such grounds; for example, a claim made more than once that the Tribunal did not consider some particular matter or particular documents. However, when asked about this, the appellant indicated quite clearly that the only basis for his claim was that the Tribunal did not believe his evidence. The fact that a particular person�s evidence is not believed does not, of course, mean that the case put before the Tribunal was not considered.

NAXD v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

MIGRATION � no issue of principle

Wong v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

MIGRATION � proceedings relating to decisions of Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs refusing grant of student visa and refusing revocation of refusal to grant visa � where Minister contended certain information protected under s 503A of Migration Act 1958 ("the Act")

NAOA v Minister For Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

1 This is an appeal from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court (NAOA v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FMCA 572) dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (�the Tribunal�) made on 18 March 2003, affirming a decision of the respondent Minister�s delegate not to grant the appellant a protection visa.

2 The appellant, a national of Bangladesh, entered Australia on 25 August 2001 on a visitor�s visa. On 21 September 2001, he sought a protection visa on the basis of political persecution in Bangladesh. The appellant made various claims in his application, including allegations of politically motivated assault and harassment, as well as alleging that his political opponents had caused criminal charges to be fabricated against him. All of these claims were founded on the appellant�s assertion that he was a prominent member of the Jatiya Party in Bangladesh.

NAPE v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

1 The appellants appeal from the decision of Hill J given on 21 October 2003 in which he dismissed their application. The application was one brought in reliance on s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) seeking judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (�the Tribunal�) which affirmed the decision of the respondent to refuse to grant to the female appellant (�the wife�) a protection (class XA) visa which they had sought pursuant to the provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (�the Act�).

SZACO v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004


1 On 16 December 2002, the applicant sought judicial review by the Federal Magistrates Court of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (�the Tribunal�) made on 30 October 2002, handed down on 21 November 2002, which affirmed a decision of the respondent�s delegate not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

WACF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2

1 The appellant arrived in Australia on 5 July 2001 and on 6 July applied for a protection visa. To grant such a visa, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (�the Minister�) had to be satisfied that the appellant was a person to whom Australia had protection obligations under the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, as amended by the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees: see Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 36(2).

2 In general terms, the Minister had to be satisfied that the appellant was a refugee as defined in the Convention. The appellant argued that he answered that definition because he had a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of his race and ethnicity. He claimed to be a citizen of Afghanistan and a Shi�ite Muslim of Hazara ethnicity. He claimed to fear persecution from the Taliban who were then in government in Afghanistan and persecuting Hazara people.

Nafeh v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004

1 This is an appeal from a judgment of Lindgren J of 12 March 2004. His Honour dismissed an application for constitutional writs concerning a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal ("the MRT") of 30 June 2003. The following from his Honour's judgment sets out sufficient background:

By [the decision of 30 June 2003] , the MRT affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent (respectively �the Delegate� and �the Minister�) that Mr Nafeh was not entitled to the grant of a Special Eligibility (Residence) (Class AO) Subclass 832 (Close Ties) visa.

The ground of the application is that the MRT erred in law in its construction of the following criterion which is found in subclause 832.212(4)(c) in Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth):

NBAP v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2

1 Before the Court is an appeal from a decision of Lindgren J delivered on 19 March 2004. His Honour dismissed an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) handed down on 15 January 2004. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of the delegate of the respondent to refuse the appellant and his wife protection visas.

2 The appellant and his wife are citizens of India from West Bengal. The appellant was born in 1979 and is a computer engineer by occupation. The appellant and his wife left India for New Zealand on 25 July 2002. The appellant held a student visa which, after it was extended, was valid until 31 July 2003. On 9 April 2003, before the appellant�s student visa expired, the appellant and his wife arrived in Australia.

NATP v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2


BETWEEN: NATP
APPELLANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGES: WILCOX, EMMETT and DOWNES JJ
DATE OF ORDER: 16 AUGUST 2004
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

NAXA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2

1 This is an appeal from a decision given by Whitlam J on 10 February 2004, dismissing with costs an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (�the Tribunal�).

2 The appellant is a Chinese national who sought a protection visa on the basis of his political opinion. It is not necessary for us to summarise the claims made by the appellant. They are set out in the reasons for decision of the Tribunal.

NAYF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2

1 This is a case where it is necessary for the applicant to obtain leave to appeal. Gyles J summarily dismissed the application for review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal. The applicant does not appear, despite his name being called outside the court. No information has been received by the respondent or by the Court registry to explain his absence.

SQMB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

1 This is an appeal from orders made by Mansfield J on 17 October 2003. His Honour had earlier, on 8 September 2003, given directions which were framed to make ready for hearing an application by the appellants for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") affirming a refusal by a delegate of the respondent Minister to grant protection visas to the appellants. Those directions were in the following terms;

SJSB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

1 This is an appeal from orders of Mansfield J pronounced on 22 January 2004 dismissing an application under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) to quash a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") made on 6 March 2003. The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister refusing to grant the appellant a protection visa.

2 The appellant is a Sri Lankan national who arrived in Australia on 3 March 2001 on a student visa. He applied for a protection visa on 6 November 2001. The learned primary Judge noted that the basis of the appellant�s claim to be a refugee as defined in Art 1A(2) of the Refugees� Convention as amended by the Refugees� Protocol ("the Convention") had been set out in these terms in his application for a protection visa;

SLGB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2

CITIZENSHIP AND MIGRATION - Refugees - Appeal from decision of primary judge affirming RRT decision not to grant protection visa - Jurisdictional error - Alleged failure by the RRT to exercise jurisdiction by misunderstanding and not addressing aspect of claim - Relevant social group - Social group properly described - No reviewable error - Persecution - Serious harm - Requirement that serious harm be systematic - RRT finding that harassment was opportunistic - RRT finding that the possibility of future harm was remote - Possibility of relocation - Persecution a question of fact and degree - Alleged failure by RRT to address and make findings with respect to the appellant's subsidiary claims - No difference between main and subsidiary claims - No obligation on RRT to draw the same conclusions as case officers - RRT conducts a new hearing - Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 91R - Appeal dismissed.

NAXN v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2

MIGRATION � application for protection visa � newspaper articles referred to by applicant in course of Tribunal hearing � articles not provided to Tribunal � whether Tribunal under legal duty to call for articles in such circumstances

NAWO v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2

1 On Friday 13 August 2004, this matter was heard and the appeal was dismissed with costs. The Court indicated that reasons would be published today. These are those reasons.

2 This is an appeal from orders made of a Judge of the Court dismissing an application under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) and under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) in which orders were sought in respect of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the "Tribunal") made on 27 August 2003 in which the decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse the appellant a protection visa was affirmed.

SZAJL v Minister For Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004

1 This is an appeal from a decision of the Federal Magistrates Court, dismissing an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (�the Tribunal�) handed down on 21 March 2003, in which the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the respondent�s delegate not to grant the appellant a protection visa.

2 The appellant, an Indian Moslem, and his family arrived in Australia on 8 September 2001. He applied for a protection visa on 17 October 2001, claiming to fear persecution by Hindu extremists by reason of his religion, Islam.

SJSB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

1 This is an appeal from orders of Mansfield J pronounced on 22 January 2004 dismissing an application under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) to quash a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") made on 6 March 2003. The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister refusing to grant the appellant a protection visa.

2 The appellant is a Sri Lankan national who arrived in Australia on 3 March 2001 on a student visa. He applied for a protection visa on 6 November 2001. The learned primary Judge noted that the basis of the appellant�s claim to be a refugee as defined in Art 1A(2) of the Refugees� Convention as amended by the Refugees� Protocol ("the Convention") had been set out in these terms in his application for a protection visa;

AAAD v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

MIGRATION - judicial review - appeal - no appearance of appellant at hearing of appeal - appeal heard and determined in absentia - no merit in appeal

NAST v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

1 This is an appeal from a decision of a judge of the Court dismissing an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (�the RRT�) which affirmed a decision of the Minister�s delegate refusing the appellants� application for protection visas (NAST v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 86). The first appellant is the mother of the second appellant, who is an infant and was born in Australia. The second appellant�s application for a protection visa was dependent on the success of the first appellant�s application.

NATF v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

1 This is an appeal from a decision of a judge of the Court dismissing an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (�the RRT�) affirming a decision of a delegate of the respondent to refuse to grant the appellant a protection visa (NATF v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 195).

2 The appellant is a citizen of Bangladesh who claims a fear of persecution for reason of his religion. The appellant claims that he is an �Ahmadi� or �Ahmadiyya� Muslim, and that when he was living in Bangladesh he was targeted for brutal treatment by (the majority) Sunni Muslims.

NAWM v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

1 The appellant is a citizen of the People�s Republic of China. He arrived in Australia on 27 May 2002 and on 31 May 2002 lodged an application for a protection visa. He claimed that he had been dismissed from his work and prevented from obtaining further work because of his involvement as President of a Labour Union and his attempts to protect the rights of workers in the textile factory in which he worked.

2 On 26 July 2002 the Minister�s delegate decided to refuse to grant a protection visa. The appellant applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal (�the Tribunal�) for review of that decision. On 28 May 2003 the Tribunal wrote to the appellant at an address he had provided in his application, that of his migration agent, and invited him to attend a hearing and to give evidence and present arguments in support of his claim. That letter was not returned to the Tribunal. Another copy of the letter, which was sent to the appellant�s home address which he had provided in the application, was returned. In any event it seems clear enough that the appellant or his agent received the letter, for the document entitled �Response to Hearing Invitation� was filled in, dated 31 May 2003, and returned to the Tribunal.

Rahmatullah v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs

MIGRATION � Tribunal found that appellant is not Afghani and has never resided in Afghanistan � application for one-way travel document to Afghanistan � appellant contends that Minister is bound by the decision of the Tribunal and cannot now rely on evidence contrary to its findings � distinction between the evidence before the Tribunal and evidence which is later provided to the Afghani government by the appellant � finding by primary judge that there was a real prospect of removal of the appellant in the reasonably foreseeable future

NAWZ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

MIGRATION � Migration Act 1958 (Cth) � false visa application � false application signed by appellant�s confederate � whether appellant responsible for content of false application � whether application valid

SPLB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

MIGRATION � appeal from summary dismissal for failure to comply with orders, and on basis amended application cannot possibly succeed � failure of appellant to appear

NAPU v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

MIGRATION � appellant outspoken journalist � Refugee Review Tribunal concluded appellant threatened by people wanting to silence him or seek revenge because appellant had written about them � Refugee Review Tribunal concluded appellant not threatened because of membership of particular social group � Refugee Review Tribunal accepted that Bangladeshi media members sometimes victims of violence or harassment from government or powerful individuals � issues raised by material presented to Refugee Review Tribunal not addressed by it � whether various references by appellant to himself as outspoken journalist and material about fate of journalists fairly raised a broad case � whether a particular social group was constituted by outspoken journalists in Bangladesh

SHLB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

1. The circumstances of this matter are marked by some number of omissions on the appellant�s part. For some of these he is clearly responsible. For others, not so. The appellant is a Nepalese citizen who has made an unsuccessful application for a protection visa. That application was dismissed by the Refugee Review Tribunal (�The Tribunal�) on 29 January 2003. The basis of the Tribunal�s decision was that the Tribunal considered that key aspects of his testimony were not credible.

Naidu v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004

MIGRATION � Cancellation of a Permanent Resident Visa � Under section 501 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) � Whether appellant denied procedural fairness � Requirement of procedural fairness that person affected by visa revocation know the substance of matters to re relied on to his detriment.

SPKB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

1 The Full Court handed down its decisions in these appeals on 18 December 2003. Both were dismissed with costs. On 24 March 2004 the appellant filed in each proceeding a notice of motion for an order that "the orders embodying the judgment pronounced herein by the Full Court ... not be sealed until further order". On 23 April 2004 the appellant filed in each proceeding a notice of motion for orders that the Full Court

SZAEG v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [

MIGRATION � procedural fairness � obligation on Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) to notify appellants of invitation to appear � appeal from a decision of a Federal Magistrate dismissing an application for review of an RRT decision � where appellants claimed they were not notified of proceedings before RRT � where RRT had sent numerous letters to last address for service provided by appellants � whether appellants had sent notification of change of address to RRT � finding by Federal Magistrate that notice of change of address sent to wrong address by appellants � finding by Federal Magistrate only logical finding open on evidence accepted by Federal Magistrate

SZAFW v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004

MIGRATION � application for protection visa � whether appellant put claim to the Tribunal � whether Tribunal failed to consider appellant�s claim � whether failure to consider appellant�s claim amounts to jurisdictional error

Tuncok v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [200

MIGRATION � constitutional writ relief � cancellation of non-citizen permanent visa � decision made by Minister personally � appellant�s failure to pass character test - criminal record.

MIGRATION - procedural fairness - whether general deterrence is an irrelevant consideration - whether general deterrence is a factor relevant to the exercise of the Minister's discretion - whether cancellation of visa where general deterrence is the sole or substantial reason for cancellation of visa is punitive - whether appellant's intellectual disability was taken into account.

PRACTICE and PROCEDURE - notice of objection to the competency of the appeal �whether trial judge dealt with matter on a final basis - no leave to appeal necessary � application for leave to file amended notice of appeal to include grounds not raised before trial judge.

NASF v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

MIGRATION � claim for protection visa refused by Refugee Review Tribunal � primary Judge dismissed application under s 39B of the Judiciary Act � procedural fairness � obligations to give notice of hearing.

VUAX v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

MIGRATION � application for protection visa � Tribunal had regard to information from Lonely Planet Guide in rejecting aspect of appellant�s claim � whether failure to provide appellant with opportunity to comment upon information constituted breach of s 424A of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) � whether information "the reason, or a part of the reason" for affirming decision under review � point raised on appeal having previously been abandoned at first instance � whether leave to rely upon proposed ground should be granted

WORDS & PHRASES � "the reason, or a part of the reason" � s 424A(1) of Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

Djalic v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

MIGRATION � Minister cancels visa under s 501(2) of the Migration Act 1958 � scope of Minister�s discretion � whether the provision should be read down to exclude considerations that are �punitive� in character � whether any potential conflict with Chapter III of the Constitution by purporting to rest judicial power in the Minister� whether decisions giving weight to the need to protect the community are punitive in character

MIGRATION � Minister cancels visa under s 501(2) of the Migration Act 1958 � relevant considerations � best interests of the children � whether Minister under obligation to make further inquiries

Vaeula v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [200

1 This is an appeal from a judgment of a single Judge of this Court.

2 The appellant is a citizen of New Zealand who last arrived in Australia on 22 September 1990. On 1 September 1994 he was granted a special category visa by operation of law under the provisions of the Migration Reform Act 1992 (Cth).

3 The appellant lives in a defacto relationship with Ms Jeanette Peacock. There is one child of that relationship, Dylan, who was born on 14 March 1994.

4 On 3 September 1999, the appellant was sentenced to a minimum term of nine months gaol and an additional term of three months on three counts of larceny. An issues paper was placed before the Minister regarding the possible cancellation of the appellant�s visa in the light of those convictions. On 26 April 2000 the Minister�s delegate exercised his discretion not to cancel the visa at that stage on the basis that the appellant be given a very strong warning that any further criminal activity would lead to the matter being reconsidered.

VTAA v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

1 It is apparent from the reasons of the primary judge that the appellant was unable to identify any legal error in the reasons of the Refugee Review Tribunal, let alone an error going to its jurisdiction. The Tribunal had come to its decision on the facts of the appellant�s case. What the appellant sought from the Court at first instance was a reconsideration of the factual matters determined by the Tribunal in light of his claims of fear of persecution. In the decision appealed from, his Honour explained that this Court is not able to undertake a review of the merits of the case. Its role is limited to ascertaining whether there is any legal error in the primary judge�s reasoning.

Tuita v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004

2 The appellant is a national of Tonga. On 1 August 2003 he applied for a Bridging E (Class WE), Subclass 050 Bridging (General) Visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (�the Act�). On 5 August 2003 a delegate of the respondent, the Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (�the Minister�), refused to grant a visa. On 6 August 2003, the appellant lodged an application with the Migration Review Tribunal (�the Tribunal�) for review of the decision of the delegate. On 14 August 2003, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse to grant a visa.

SHLB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

1 When this appeal was called on for hearing the appellant was absent. Mr Tredrea, counsel for the respondent, has sought an order pursuant to O 52 r 38A of the Federal Court Rules that the appeal be dismissed with costs.

2 The Court considers it appropriate to make the order sought by Mr Tredrea.

3 There can be no doubt that the appellant was aware that his appeal was listed for hearing this morning. The appellant has sent to the Court registry a standard form certificate of sickness for employment purposes. The Court is aware that the appellant has been advised by a registry officer that if he wishes the hearing of his appeal to be adjourned he must attend the Court, or arrange for someone to attend on his behalf, to apply for and justify an adjournment.

SKFB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2004] FCAFC 142 (2

1 The first appellant is an ethnic Indian and citizen of Fiji. He and his family (his wife and 22 year old son, the second and third appellants respectively) arrived in Australia on 22 December 2001; the year following the armed nationalist revolution where insurgents stormed parliament and seized control of Fiji after the election of Fiji�s first ethnically Indian Prime Minister. There has been longstanding tension between indigenous Fijians and Indo - Fijians. The appellant (it will be convenient to refer to the first appellant in this way as he is the only appellant who challenges the tribunal�s decision) claims to be a victim of the animosity that indigenous Fijians bear against those of Indian ethnicity. The nature of the mistreatment he says he suffered will be explained in a moment.

Khan v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2

MIGRATION � Application for protection visa � Appeal against decision of Federal Magistrate dismissing application for review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal � Tribunal disbelieved evidence of appellant as to his mistreatment by police � Application of �no evidence� ground in relation to non-acceptance of evidence � Whether Tribunal�s view was perverse and irrational � Appeal dismissed.

WAJS v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2

MIGRATION � Application for protection visa � Appeal against decision of Federal Magistrate dismissing application for review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal � Tribunal disbelieved evidence of appellant as to his mistreatment by police � Application of �no evidence� ground in relation to non-acceptance of evidence � Whether Tribunal�s view was perverse and irrational � Appeal dismissed.

SPBB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

1 The appellant, a citizen of Bangladesh, appeals to this Court against a decision of a judge of this Court dismissing his application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal refusing the grant of a protection visa.

VNAA v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

MIGRATION � Application for protection visa � Whether Refugee Review Tribunal failed to provide applicant with particulars of information that the Tribunal considered would be the reason, or part of the reason for affirming decision under review � Requirement not applicable if information "just about a class of persons of which the applicant or other person is a member" � Whether information within exception - Tribunal required to invite applicant to appear to give evidence and present argument � Notice of hearing to be given in prescribed manner � Notice deemed to have been received if so given � Notice given in prescribed manner but not received by applicant � Whether deemed receipt provision applies only to notice and not to invitation.

SLMB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE � application for leave to amend notice of appeal � alleged error not raised before primary judge

NAUV v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

MIGRATION � appeal from a single Judge � where application for a protection visa refused � where appellant did not know of the delegate�s decision because he escaped detention and remained at large for eighteen months � where jurisdictional error by delegate found to exist � whether trial Judge erred in exercise of discretion.

VAF v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

MIGRATION � application for protection visa refused � Tribunal�s understanding of the word �persecution� � s 424A of Migration Act 1958 � whether information was �the reason or part of the reason� for affirming the decision under review � meaning of �information� � identification of the �reason� for decision � an interpretative task � discretionary ground to refuse relief

NALQ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

MIGRATION � judicial review � application for protection visa � application for review by Refugee Review Tribunal � appellant invited to attend oral hearing � appellant sought adjournment on basis of illness and pending operation � Tribunal request for medical certificate � no medical certificate provided � hearing proceeded in absence of appellant � whether contravention of s 425 � whether invitation illusory � whether breach of requirement of procedural fairness

NAHQ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE � whether order dismissing application for an order nisi is interlocutory � whether leave to appeal is required

NAQZ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2

1 In this matter, the Court received a facsimile from the appellant, seeking an adjournment of today�s hearing on the basis of ill health. In reply, the Court sent a letter to the appellant�s address for service, by courier, which stated that the appellant should not presume that the Court would be prepared to adjourn today�s hearing. There has, however, been no appearance by the appellant.

2 The Court has considered an application for dismissal of the appeal, pursuant to Order 52 rule 38A of the Federal Court Rules. In the circumstances, having regard to the contents of the submissions by counsel for the respondent, and having read the reasons for decision of the Court below, and of the Refugee Review Tribunal, the Court considers it appropriate that the matter be dismissed with costs for non-appearance, and also because there is simply no basis shown or raised in the Notice of Appeal that could warrant the upholding of the appeal.

VQAB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

MIGRATION � application for protection visa refused by delegate of Minister � application for merits review by Refugee Review Tribunal dismissed � application for judicial review � primary judge concluded that in not making particular finding, Tribunal had not failed to take into account relevant consideration � primary judge concluded that in relying upon "older" country information, Tribunal had not taken into account irrelevant consideration � appeal to Full Court � whether primary judge erred in law

NAUE v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

1 This is an appeal from an order of a single Judge of the Court dismissing with costs an application by the appellant for review of a decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") affirming the refusal to grant the appellant a protection (class XA) visa. The Tribunal�s decision was made on 11 June 2003.

2 The appellant�s claim for a protection visa was based on a fear of persecution by reason of his political opinions if he were to return to Bangladesh. The detail of his claim has been summarised as follows by the learned primary Judge;

WAHP v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2

MIGRATION � application to Federal Magistrates Court for prerogative writs to quash decision of Refugee Review Tribunal that appellant not be granted a protection visa � Tribunal found letter corroborating appellant�s claims was fabricated � whether jurisdictional error in Tribunal process.

NAEB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

MIGRATION � appeal from primary judge dismissing application for judicial review of Refugee Review Tribunal decision � whether the Refugee Review Tribunal asked the wrong question when considering whether the consequences of a return to the People�s Republic of China would constitute persecution of the appellant � whether proper question was why the appellant would modify his practice of Falun Gong - whether question would reveal the appellant had a well founded fear of persecution

PROCEDURE � new ground of appeal raised � whether appropriate for Court to entertain ground where based on an authoritative determination of the High Court delivered between decision of primary judge and hearing of appeal.

WAIJ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

MIGRATION � application to Federal Magistrates Court for prerogative writs to quash decision of Refugee Review Tribunal that appellant not be granted a protection visa � Tribunal not satisfied that material corroborating appellant�s claims was not fabricated � no relevant findings of fact � role of Tribunal in conducting a review under the Migration Act.

Akpata v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [200

MIGRATION � appeal against decision of Minister to refuse visa application made pursuant to s 501 Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (�the Act�) � where decision had the effect of cancelling bridging visa held by the appellant and where appellant became liable to be detained and was detained � whether procedural fairness required that appellant be advised of the consequences of an adverse decision made pursuant to s 501 of the Act � whether document upon which Minister signified his decision constituted the reasons for that decision � where Minister took into account irrelevant and sensational material without inviting appellant to comment on it � denial of procedural fairness � appeal allowed.

Xiang v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004

MIGRATION � judicial review � special need relative visa � visa refused because appellant not "able" to provide assistance � meaning of "able" � visa also refused because appellant did not continue to meet visa criteria between application and final decision � meaning of "continues" � jurisdictional error

Hu v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] F

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW � natural justice � where primary judge exercised discretion on basis of a finding of lack of candour of the first appellant � whether appellant put on notice as to possibility of that adverse finding � whether denial of procedural fairness

IMMIGRATION � jurisdictional error � s 128 Migration Act 1958 (Cth) �visa cancelled without prior notice to visa holder � notice under s 129 � whether information in notice under s 129 sufficient to justify cancellation � whether delegate failed to ask whether it was appropriate to cancel the visa under s 129.

SGDB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

MIGRATION � Protection Visa � fair hearing � failure to consider case put by applicant � failure of the Tribunal to consider whether there was a well founded fear of persecution on journey back to place of resettlement

NATC v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

1 The appellants are citizens of Russia. They appeal from a decision of a Judge of this Court dismissing an application under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent to refuse the grant of a protection visa to each of the appellants.

NARY v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

1 The appellant is a citizen of Ukraine who arrived in Australia on 25 April 2001 on a visitor�s visa. On 17 May 2001 he applied for a Protection (Class XA) visa. On 14 November 2001 a delegate of the respondent refused to grant the visa. The Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the delegate�s decision. An application for review of the Tribunal�s decision was dismissed by a Judge of the Court. The present appeal is from that decision.

NASH v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

1 The appellant appeals to the Full Court from a primary judge�s decision dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent to refuse the appellant a protection visa.

NARX v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

1 The appellant is a citizen of Ukraine. His application for a protection visa was refused by the respondent�s delegate. That refusal was affirmed by the Refugee Review Tribunal. A judge of the Court dismissed his application for a review of the Tribunal�s decision. He appeals to the Full Court from the primary judge�s decision.

Ahmed v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [

1 When this appeal was called on for hearing there was no appearance by the appellant and the respondent sought an order under O 52 r 18(3) of the Federal Court Rules ("the Rules") that the appeal be dismissed by the Court as incompetent. In view of the fact that the decision below is interlocutory in character, that leave to appeal is necessary and that no application for leave, or for an extension of time within which to seek leave, has been made, the Court considers that the appeal is incompetent and accordingly dismisses the appeal.

VDAU v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

1 This is an appeal from a judgment of a single Judge of the Court declining to grant an application for review of a decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") to affirm a refusal by the delegate of the respondent Minister to grant the appellant a protection visa.

NAMJ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

1 The appellant appeals from the reasons and decision of the primary Judge (see [2003] FCA 983).

2 The appellant applied for a protection visa. That application was refused by a delegate of the Minister. The appellant sought a review of that decision from the Refugee Review Tribunal (�the Tribunal�). On 20 February 2003, the Tribunal delivered its decision confirming the previous decision of the delegate.

NALZ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

1 The Court has ordered that this appeal be stood over to a date to be fixed and has referred the appellant to the Registrar under O 80 of the Federal Court Rules.

2 The reason this course has been taken is that it appeared to us on reading the materials that have been filed in the appeal that there may well be an arguable ground of appeal relating to a matter which was not raised before the primary judge but which is suggested by the reasons of the Refugee Review Tribunal.

3 The appellant, an Indian national, is a Tamil. The Tribunal accepted that he had been arrested on two occasions for selling electrical goods to Sri Lankan nationals. He had previously studied electrical engineering and was later engaged as a salesman in an electronics shop at the time of the arrests.

NAOO v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

MIGRATION � protection visa � Refugee Review Tribunal � appeal from decision of Judge of Court exercising jurisdiction of the Court to review Tribunal decision � Tribunal took into account relevant considerations � alleged errors non-jurisdictional � reviewing Court cannot conduct merits review � appeal dismissed.

NAWR v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & indigenous Affairs [2004]

MIGRATION � appeal from single Judge of the Federal Court � protections visa � where Tribunal requested further information � where applicant�s request for an extension of time was refused � issue regarding failure to seek protection elsewhere not raised before primary Judge � appeal dismissed.

NASB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE � appeal � application by appellant to adduce further evidence on appeal � Refugee Review Tribunal affirms decision of delegate of respondent Minister not to grant protection visa � application to Court for prerogative relief in respect of Tribunal�s decision is dismissed � appeal to Full court from that dismissal � Tribunal not satisfied that authorities in country of nationality had continuing interest in appellant � appellant seeks leave to lead on hearing of appeal evidence recently received by him of summons and notice issued in his country of nationality requiring his attendance at Court � hearing date in summons preceded delegate�s decision � notice issued after hearing before Tribunal, requiring attendance after Tribunal�s decision � documents received by appellant from a friend in his country of nationality only within the month preceding hearing of appeal � whether breach of rules of natural justice.

Ngu v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

MIGRATION � deportation � whether application seeking review of decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirming deportation order is competent � application filed out of time � whether tribunal decision a "privative clause decision" � no arguable ground of appeal

Nguyen v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004

MIGRATION � cancellation of visa � whether Issues document prepared by Department constituted Minister�s reasons for decision � whether Minister in jurisdictional error for failing to take into account best interests of the children � whether Minister failed to consider children�s position if they did not accompany applicant to Vietnam � no error in rejection of assertion of jurisdictional error

NATK v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2

1 The appellant is a citizen of Bangladesh who arrived in Australia on 16 October 2001. On 8 November 2001, he lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs ("the Department") under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"). On 20 February 2002, a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs ("the delegate") refused to grant a protection visa, and on 18 March 2002, the appellant applied for review of that decision to the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the RRT"). The RRT, on 22 May 2002, affirmed the decision not to grant a protection visa, whereupon an application for review was made to this Court.

NALM v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

1 The appellant appeals from a judgment of a judge of the Court given on 10 October 2003, dismissing his application to the Court and ordering him to pay the respondent�s costs.

2 The application was made under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) for orders in the nature of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus directed to the Refugee Review Tribunal (�RRT�). Those orders were sought in respect of a decision of the RRT dated 3 January 2003 and handed down on 19 February 2003, affirming a decision of a delegate of the respondent not to grant a Protection visa to the appellant.

Te v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] F

IMMIGRATION � deportation � immigration detention pending deportation � length of detention � failure to take steps to effect removal of deportee from Australia � largely referable to deportee�s legal challenges � period of inactivity for six months unrelated to legal proceedings � whether inactivity evidences want of proper purpose for continuing detention � onus of proof � whether onus upon Minister to justify detention � power to detain � whether implied limitation � whether limited to period reasonably necessary to effect deportation � effect of previous Full Court decision � no such implied limitation � appeal dismissed

NAOV v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

1 The appellant appeals from orders made by a Federal Magistrate on 16 April 2003 dismissing an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") handed down on 2 July 2002. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the appellant a protection visa. The respondent, a Georgian national, had claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution in that country on the grounds of his religion as a member or associate of the Jehovah�s Witness church.

WAHK v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

MIGRATION � appeal from Federal Magistrate � RRT found that when appellant left Afghanistan he had a well founded fear of persecution � RRT found that he was not a refugee � RRT found that conditions had changed since departure from Afghanistan � whether wrong test applied � RRT had regard to Taliban�s lack of government power and whether Pashtuns were in control � whether wrong question was asked � whether an error going to jurisdiction.

NAHI v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

MIGRATION � visa � protection visa � reliance on �country information� � whether Tribunal can use such information in assessing credit � whether such information the sole basis for Tribunal�s findings as to credit � Tribunal�s duty to look at reasonably foreseeable future � whether subsequent developments can be relied on to vitiate Tribunal�s decision � whether denial of procedural fairness � whether sufficient opportunity to deal with country information � whether Tribunal biased

QAAH v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

1 The appellant, his wife and two children arrived in Australia from Fiji on 10 January 2001. An application was lodged for a protection visa shortly thereafter. The appellant and his family were nationals of Fiji of Indian ethnicity. It was said that they feared that they might be killed by indigenous Fijians if they returned to Fiji. Since the coup of May 2000, the shop of which the appellant was a manager was frequently vandalized and robbed by local Fijians if their demands for money were not met. Fiji-Indian employees were beaten. There had been demands that the appellant resign from his employment, and he had been beaten unconscious on the way home from work on one occasion. Despite being able to identify some of his attackers, the police took no action. He had been attacked on other occasions. His son was kidnapped for some hours on his way home from school. Threats had been made to kill his family and they said that they lived in fear. The Native Land Trust Board had refused to renew the lease of the land upon which they lived. The police, although advised of the family�s difficulties, took no action. The appellant claimed that the government was unwilling or unable to protect citizens from threats and mistreatment by indigenous Fijians.

NAHF v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2004] FCAFC 7 (13

MIGRATION � Protection visa � protection obligations under the Refugee Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol � whether a person has effective protection in another territory � whether Australia owes protection obligations to a person that has effective protection in another territory � whether a Contracting State to the Refugees Convention is prohibited from returning a person to a country to which they had no former connexion

NAEN v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

MIGRATION - Protection visa - protection obligations under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol - whether a person has effective protection in another territory - whether Australia owes protection obligations to a person that has effective protection in another territory - whether the effective protection principle applies where an asylum seeker has no connexion with the safe third country and has no desire to go there - Australia owes no protection obligations to a person if they are not prevented by Art 33 from expelling or returning a refugee to the frontiers of another territory

NAEN v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

MIGRATION - Protection visa - protection obligations under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol - whether a person has effective protection in another territory - whether Australia owes protection obligations to a person that has effective protection in another territory - whether the effective protection principle applies where an asylum seeker has no connexion with the safe third country and has no desire to go there - Australia owes no protection obligations to a person if they are not prevented by Art 33 from expelling or returning a refugee to the frontiers of another territory

NANV v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

1 This is an appeal from a judgment of Madgwick J, dismissing an application by the appellant for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the RRT").

2 The appellant is a citizen of Bangladesh. He entered Australia on 3 June 1998. On 14 July 1998, he lodged an application for a protection visa, claiming to be a citizen of India. A delegate of the respondent rejected that application. It resulted in a judgment of the Court dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the RRT adverse to the appellant. The judgment was delivered on 26 April 2001.

NAIS v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004]

MIGRATION � appeal from a decision of a single judge affirming a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal where there was a substantial delay between the first hearing and the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal � whether delay in and of itself between the hearing and the decision of the Tribunal amounts to a denial of natural justice � whether prejudice to the applicants can be inferred

NAKD v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

1 One thing is clear about the Refugee Review Tribunal's reasons and that is that such as they are, they are far from satisfactory. At the commencement of the passage in the Tribunal's reasons headed "Findings and Reasons" the Tribunal makes the following comments:

�When determining whether an applicant is entitled to protection in Australia the Tribunal must first making findings of facts on the claims he or she has made. This may involve an assessment of the credibility of the applicant.

NAHT v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2

1 The appellant appeals from the judgment of a Judge of this Court (Branson J) dismissing his application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). The Tribunal was not satisfied that the appellant was a person to whom Australia had protection obligations, that being a necessary criterion to be satisfied if the appellant was to be granted a protection visa.

WAFP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

MIGRATION � appeal from a decision of a Federal Magistrate affirming decision of Refugee Review Tribunal refusing appellant a protection visa � where the Tribunal made adverse findings regarding the appellant�s credibility and substance of his claim without considering the appellant�s initial interview with an adviser and an interpreter � whether jurisdictional error.

NABC v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2

3 The appellants, who are father and son, are Sri Lankan nationals of Tamil background, appeal against the orders of a Judge of this Court made on 3 February 2003 dismissing an application made under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) seeking writs and orders in respect of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) made on 21 September 2001 and handed down on 16 October 2001. The decision of the Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister rejecting the appellants� claims for protection visas.

4 It was common ground before the primary judge and on appeal that the application was governed by the amending legislation passed in 2001 and effective from 2 October 2001. In particular, the privative clause, s 474 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) potentially applied.

WAAF v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

MIGRATION � notice issued pursuant to s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) � s 424A notice an invitation to comment � no requirement for appellant to be given opportunity to gather documentation

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW � judicial review � procedural fairness � decision of RRT � request for extension of time to produce documents � additional documentation relevant and important � allowing adequate time for appellant to establish nationality � appellant aware nationality a central issue � RRT decision to be addressed on the basis of the material that was before it at the time � decision may have been wrong in fact but did not therefore exceed jurisdiction � whether RRT made an erroneous finding or reached a mistaken conclusion �recommendation to Minister to exercise discretion under s 417 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

SHCB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

MIGRATION � protection visa � application refused on ground that Refugees Convention did not apply to the appellant by reasons of the operation of Art 1F of the Refugees Convention � where finding that appellant committed a war crime or crime against humanity � whether necessary that there be a finding with respect to a specific incident � duress � whether appellant in a position to make the relevant moral choice

SHJB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

IMMIGRATION � cancellation of visa � failure to answer correctly questions on application form � Refugee Review Tribunal found that appellant had so failed � primary judge found that there was material before the Tribunal which justified its conclusion � whether primary judge erred in failing to decide, on the material before him, whether the appellant had in fact failed correctly to answer the relevant questions � whether that fact was a jurisdictional fact or whether the Tribunal�s decision about non-compliance was the relevant jurisdictional fact � whether the Tribunal�s decision was unreasonable in the �Wednesbury� sense � whether the Court may apply a test of "relative reasonable satisfaction" � appeal dismissed.

SCAG v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [200

1 The appellants are a husband and wife and their daughter. They are Albanian citizens. The wife arrived in Australia on a false passport on 16 June 2000. The husband and daughter arrived on a valid temporary visa on 3 November 2000. On 16 January 2001 they lodged an application for a protection visa. Only the husband made a specific claim that he was a refugee within the meaning of the Refugees Convention. A delegate of the respondent refused to grant the visa. The delegate�s decision was affirmed by the Refugee Review Tribunal. The appellants� application for review of the Tribunal�s decision was dismissed by the primary judge. The appeal is from that decision.

SCAL v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [200

1 The appellant is a citizen of Albania who arrived in Australia on 20 September 1999. On 2 November 1999 he lodged an application for a protection visa. The application was rejected by a delegate of the respondent, whose decision was affirmed by the Refugee Review Tribunal. The appellant�s application under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) for review of the Tribunal�s decision was dismissed by the primary judge.

SBAD v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2

1 The Notice of Appeal in this matter does no more than indicate that the appellant�s application to the Federal Court was dismissed. No ground of appeal is stated and in the hearing before us the appellant did not identify any appellable error by the primary judge: Branir Pty Ltd v Owston Nominees (No 2) Pty Ltd (2001) 117 FCR 424 at [11]ff.

Dagli v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003

MIGRATION � decision by respondent to cancel appellant�s visa under s 501(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) � respondent had before him Issues Paper containing material adverse to appellant � appellant not informed of adverse material � denial of natural justice � respondent directed by primary judge during course of hearing to provide reasons for decision � respondent gave reasons but qualified them as being "best recollection" � primary judge concluded that statement of reasons demonstrated that adverse material had no bearing on outcome � whether primary judge gave excessive weight to statement of reasons � whether appellant required to prove "practical injustice" � whether respondent required to establish that breach had no bearing on decision

NABF v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

1 This is an appeal from a decision of Hill J, rejecting the appellant's application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") affirming a decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister to refuse to grant protection visas to the appellant and his wife. The relevant facts and the grounds on which the appellant sought review of the Tribunal's decision are set out in the reasons of the trial judge: see NABF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] FCA 131. (Those reasons may be found on the Federal Court's website: www.fedcourt.gov.au.)

SPKB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

1 The appellant is a citizen of Iraq who arrived in Australia on 16 December 1999. He was placed in immigration detention as an unlawful non-citizen pursuant to s 189 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). He remains in detention. In March 2000 he applied for a protection visa claiming to have a well-founded fear of persecution by the Iraqi authorities if he returned there, to be unable to return to Syria where he had lived from 1996 to 1999, and that he risked refoulement by Syria to Iraq if he returned to Syria. The visa application was refused by a delegate of the respondent, whose decision was affirmed by the Refugee Review Tribunal. The Tribunal found the appellant could return to, and remain in, Syria without the risk of being refouled to Iraq. Hence he was found not to be a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. See Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Thiyagarajah (1998) 80 FCR 543 (Thiyagarajah). Neither the delegate nor the Tribunal considered it necessary to deal with the appellant�s claim to have a well-founded fear of persecution if he were to return to Iraq. The appellant sought judicial review of the Tribunal�s decision, but discontinued the application on 30 May 2001.

SPKB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

1 The background circumstances are set out in our judgment in SPKB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (S570 of 2003). There we dismissed an appeal from Mansfield J�s rejection of the appellant�s 10 April 2003 application for an order that he be removed from detention on the ground that his detention was unlawful. In June 2003 he made another application for removal from detention. The June application was heard by Lander J.

NATB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2

MIGRATION - removal of unlawful non-citizen from Australia - duty of officer to remove the non-citizen `as soon as reasonably practicable' - whether this qualification imposes an obligation on the officer to consider any prospective persecution or torture of the non-citizen in the country to which he or she is removed.

NADN v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2

1 The appellants who are husband and wife are Bangladeshis. They claim to be stateless Biharis. They arrived in Australia on 18 September 2000. On 16 October 2000 they applied for protection visas under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). On 2 November 2000 a delegate of the Minister refused their applications. On 1 December 2000 the appellants applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) for a review of that decision.

NARS v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

1 I agree with Madgwick J that the appeal should be dismissed and with the orders that his Honour proposes.

2 The grounds of appeal of the appellant incorporate grounds two, four and five which were dealt with by the learned primary judge in his judgment. In addition, however, as Madgwick J points out, the appellant, in the grounds of appeal, says that the learned primary judge ignored the merits of his case, did not act in good faith and deprived him of natural justice. These are all very significant and serious allegations and not to be made lightly, yet they were neither particularised by the appellant in the grounds of appeal nor were they pursued at all when the appellant addressed us.

Lesi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

MIGRATION � deportation order set aside by Administrative Appeals Tribunal after deportation of holder of Permanent Residence Visa � consideration of operation of s 82(4) Migration Act 1958 which provides visa ceased to be in effect upon deportation � effect of subsequent setting aside of deportation order � whether rights under visa revived � consideration of term �ceases to have effect� in s 82(4)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW � consideration of s 43(6) of Administration Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 � deportation order under Migration Act 1958 set aside by Administrative Appeals Tribunal after holder of Permanent Residence Visa deported � whether s 43(6) operates to have retrospective effect where initial decision was valid when made and rights or interests may be affected � whether rights of visa holder revived upon setting aside of deportation order

NAIP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

1 This is an appeal from the judgment of Madgwick J in NAIP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 451 in which he dismissed the appellant's application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) handed down on 16 January 2003. The decision which was sought to be reviewed itself affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister refusing to grant the appellant a protection visa.

Evans v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003

MIGRATION - visa - cancellation - application of character test - reliance by Minister on document provided by WA Police Service - whether communication to visa holder of information in document prohibited - whether WA Police Service a `gazetted agency' - whether `specified' in notice published in gazette - specification by class - whether notice can be read so as not to exceed power

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - order that questions be decided separately from other issues in proceeding - appeal from answer to second question on basis that answer to first question correct - cross-appeal from answer to first question - judges of Full Court taking different views on appeal - no majority on answer to second question - proper form of order - proper order for costs

NALJ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

1 This is an appeal from the orders and judgment of the primary Judge in NALJ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 612. For the reasons given below the appeal is dismissed with costs.

NAOK v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

1 This is an appeal from a judgment of a Judge of this Court dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("Tribunal") handed down on 25 March 2003. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the respondent ("Minister") to refuse to grant the appellant a protection visa.

NANJ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

1 This is an appeal from a decision of a Judge of this Court in which he dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("RRT") which had in turn affirmed a decision of the Minister's delegate not to grant the appellant a protection visa.

NAFD v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

1 This is an appeal from a judgment of a Judge of this Court dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("Tribunal") handed down on 11 November 2002. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent ("Minister") refusing to grant the appellant a protection visa.

NAJI v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

1 This is an appeal from the orders and judgment of the primary Judge in NAJI v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] FCA 412. The appellant did not appear at the hearing of the appeal and counsel for the respondent applied for an order that the appeal be dismissed with costs pursuant to O 52 r 38A of the Federal Court Rules. For the reasons given below it is our view that the appeal had no prospects of success in any event. In these circumstances it was clearly appropriate to accede to that application. Under O 52 r 38A the appeal is dismissed with costs.

NAOU v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2

1 The Court has considered this appeal and is in a position to deliver judgment immediately. This is an appeal from orders of a single Judge of the Court made on 16 September 2003 dismissing the appellant's application for judicial review under s 49B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) of a decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). That decision affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister to refuse the appellant a protection visa.

NAFL v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

1 This is an appeal from a judgment of Hely J in which his Honour dismissed the appellant's application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the RRT").

NARF v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

1 This is an appeal from a decision of Justice Sackville dismissing an application to the Federal Court under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) ("Judiciary Act") for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") affirming the decision of a delegate of the respondent to refuse the appellant a protection visa. The appellant is an infant and these proceedings are brought by his next friend, his mother. The relevant facts and grounds on which review was sought before the primary judge are set out in his Honour's reasons: NARF v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 685. (Those reasons are available on the Federal Court's website: www.fedcourt.gov.au.)

NAOJ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

1 This is an appeal from a decision of Justice Sackville, dismissing an application for review under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) ("Judiciary Act") of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") which affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister to refuse the appellant a protection visa. The appellant is a citizen of Bangladesh and claims to fear persecution for political reasons. The relevant facts and grounds on which review was sought before the primary judge are set out in his Honour's reasons: NAOJ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 815. (Those reasons are available on the Federal Court's website: www.fedcourt.gov.au.)

NARV v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2

MIGRATION - judicial review - refusal of protection visa -denial of procedural fairness - decision-maker obliged to disclose adverse information that is credible, relevant and significant to the decision - evidence of adverse effect on applicant not a precondition to relief - jurisdictional error in failing to give particulars of information pursuant to s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) - independent country information not "just about a class of persons"

Cakmak v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

MIGRATION - Regulations concerned with domestic violence - meaning of phrase "domestic violence" in Migration Regulations - proper approach to regulations which "take" domestic violence to have been committed in certain circumstances - questions of law and fact discussed - jurisdictional error discussed.

Cakmak v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

MIGRATION - Regulations concerned with domestic violence - meaning of phrase "domestic violence" in Migration Regulations - proper approach to regulations which "take" domestic violence to have been committed in certain circumstances - questions of law and fact discussed - jurisdictional error discussed.

NAFT v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

1 The appellant arrived in Australia on a visa obtained in the United Arab Emirates on a Bangladeshi passport which suggests that he is a national of Bangladesh. He claims, however, to be a stateless Bihari refugee who was born in and substantially grew up in Bangladesh.

VOAW v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

1 The appellant is a national of the Peoples' Republic of China. On 7 December 2000 he was issued in Beijing with a visa to enter Australia, valid until 6 March 2001. He arrived in Australia on 28 January 2001. On 31 January he lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, in which he gave his current residential address as 1/959 Doncaster Road, Doncaster East.

NAOQ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

1 This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing with costs an application under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 in respect of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (`the Tribunal') handed down on 3 April 2003: NAOQ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 647.

NAIA v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

1 On 5 November 2003 we dismissed, with costs, an appeal from a judgment of a single judge of this Court of 11 April 2003. These are our reasons.

2 The appellant is a citizen of Bangladesh. He arrived in Australia on 4 October 2000. On 20 October 2000 he applied to the Department of Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs for a protection (class XA) visa. On 14 November 2000 a delegate of the Minister refused to grant him the visa. On 17 November 2000 the appellant applied to have the decision of the delegate reviewed by the Refugee Review Tribunal (`the Tribunal').

3 On 21 November 2002 the Tribunal heard evidence from the appellant. It affirmed the decision of the delegate on 22 November 2002. The decision of the Tribunal was handed down on 18 December 2002. The appellant subsequently applied to the Federal Court for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision. The primary judge heard the application for review on 11 April 2003.

Ongel v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003

1 This is an appeal from Ongel v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 525, where Jacobson J dismissed an application to review a decision of the respondent (`the Minister') personally to cancel the appellant's resident return visa pursuant to s 501 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (`the Act').

NAHN v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

1 This is an appeal from a decision of Jacobson J given on 26 May 2003. His Honour dismissed with costs an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (`the Tribunal') made on 10 December 2002. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister given on 29 September 2000 not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

NAMD v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

MIGRATION - appeal - costs - indemnity costs - whether it is appropriate to award indemnity costs where no ground can be made out for any relief and where no ground is even attempted to be made out

NAOL v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

1 This is an appeal from a judgment of Jacobson J given on 30 July 2003 where his Honour dismissed an application under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) in respect of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (`the Tribunal') delivered on 25 March 2003, at the conclusion or an oral hearing held before it on that day.

NASI v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

1 The appellant appeals from a judgment of a judge of this Court dismissing a notice of motion. The background is that the appellant commenced proceedings in this Court seeking review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (`Tribunal') affirming a decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister not to grant the appellant a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

NARN v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

1 On 10 June 2003 the appellant filed an application in this Court seeking review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (`Tribunal') affirming a decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister not to grant the appellant a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The application was made returnable on 27 June 2003. The appellant did not appear at that time and the primary judge dismissed her application and ordered that she pay the respondent's costs.

Ongel v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003

MIGRATION - application for release from detention pending determination of substantive application - whether the Court has power to hear such an application

NACB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

MIGRATION - refugees - protection visa - credibility - Refugee Review Tribunal - illogical reasoning - error of law - jurisdictional error - "want of logic" in Tribunal decision - whether irrational or illogical reasoning a ground of review - earlier Full Court decisions - precedent - no ground of review made out - appeal dismissed

SFGB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

MIGRATION - jurisdictional error - no evidence - Wednesbury unreasonableness - findings of fact not supported by the evidence - conclusion that Taliban no longer viable in Afghanistan - only evidence before the Tribunal was that Taliban still present in area from which the appellant came

WAHN v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

MIGRATION - protection visa - judicial review - judicial review application dismissed - subsequent High Court decision relating to operation of privative clause - appeal against dismissal of judicial review application - consent order allowing appeal - order within power and appropriate - appeal allowed

Long v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

MIGRATION - cancellation of visa under s 501 of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) - whether signed Departmental Briefing Paper was a written notice setting out the reasons for the decision made - Briefing Paper indicated that cancellation of appellant's visa and removal of him from Australia would not have a detrimental effect on his children - no consideration of what were the best interests of those children - no notice given to appellant of any intention to take that course - jurisdictional error established.

NAJD v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

1 This is an appeal from a decision of Moore J handed down on 24 April 2003. His Honour dismissed an application brought by the appellant for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal given on 2 January 2003.

Andary v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2003] FCAFC 211

MIGRATION - appeal from decision to cancel transitional (permanent) visa pursuant to s 501(2) Migration Act 1958 (Cth) - where entered Australia as infant on mother's visa - where substantial criminal record - where does not pass character test - where privative clause decision - whether manifestly unreasonable - Wednesbury unreasonableness - proportionality.

Jackson v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [20

MIGRATION - appeal - Migration Review Tribunal - appellant applied for Family Residence Class AO visa on grounds he was a "special need relative" - appellant nominated by mother - at time of application appellant's father seriously ill but died before Tribunal's determination - Whether Tribunal fell into jurisdictional error in refusing visa - where Tribunal had regard to Procedures Advice Manual as a prescriptive definition of "special need relative" - where Tribunal failed to consider disability of a family member of the nominator - where need of citizen or resident varies but corresponds at all times with one or a number of reasons identified in the definition of assistance provided to the nominator

SGXB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

2 This is an appeal from a judgment of a judge of this Court: SGXB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 24, dismissing an application by the appellant under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (`the Tribunal') of 16 October 2002. The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of the Minister's delegate not to grant a protection visa to the appellant. On 20 August 2003, we dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs. We indicated we would publish our reasons for making these orders as soon as practicable. These are our reasons.

WAGH v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

MIGRATION - appeal - Refugee Review Tribunal - meaning of "protection obligations" - - meaning of `right to enter and reside' in third country - doctrine of `effective protection'

WAJB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

MIGRATION - appeal from single judge dismissing an application for review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal - Tribunal affirmed decision of delegate not to grant protection visa to appellant - application of Article 1(D) of the Refugees Convention - whether expression "ipso facto" in Article 1(D) confers an entitlement on appellant to a protection visa - whether Tribunal fell into jurisdictional error in assessing the appellant's claims.

WAEJ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

IMMIGRATION -- Refugee Review Tribunal - protection visa - Tribunal made adverse findings on appellant's credibility based on demeanour and discounted corroborative documentary evidence - Tribunal failed to give appellant opportunity to respond to adverse country information on which it intended to rely - whether jurisdictional error

NAID v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

1 These are the reasons of the Court. The appellant is a citizen of India, having arrived in Australia on 14 January 2001 he applied on 22 February 2001 for a protection (Class XA) visa under the provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (`the Act'). A delegate having refused the application, he applied for review by the Refugee Review Tribunal (`the Tribunal'). On 26 November 2002 the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision. The application for review of the Tribunal's decision made to the primary judge, Wilcox J, was dismissed.

VHAJ v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

MIGRATION - application for a protection visa - s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) - whether Refugee Review Tribunal failed to provide applicant with particulars of information that the Tribunal considered would be the reason, or a part of the reason, for affirming the decision under review - whether the relevant information was "not specifically about the applicant or another person" - whether information was "just about a class of persons of which the applicant or other person is a member" - whether exception in s 424A(3)(a) engaged

NATB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

MIGRATION - application for leave to appeal from summary dismissal of proceeding - injunction to restrain removal from Australia - apprehension of torture in proposed destination - whether arguable case

WAEV v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2

MIGRATION - appeal - no denial of natural justice to an appellant who did not and whose advisor did not at the hearing or in later submissions tender a photograph potentially corroborative of the appellant's claims before the Refugee Review Tribunal, where the Tribunal member was not made personally aware that the applicant wished to tender such a photograph - no denial of natural justice where a Refugee Review Tribunal member refused the appellant's advisor the opportunity to make oral submissions, but allowed further written submissions - the Refugee Review Tribunal did not err in law when it did not consider an argument not raised by the appellant, where that argument was not one which was self-evident.

NAEH v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

1 This is an appeal from a decision of Moore J, rejecting the appellant's application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") affirming a decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister to refuse to grant a protection visa to the appellant. The relevant facts and the grounds on which the appellant sought review of the Tribunal's decision are set out in the reasons of the trial judge: see NAEH v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] FCA 186. (Those reasons may be found on the Federal Court's website: www.fedcourt.gov.au.)

NAEH v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

1 This is an appeal from a decision of Moore J, rejecting the appellant's application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") affirming a decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister to refuse to grant a protection visa to the appellant. The relevant facts and the grounds on which the appellant sought review of the Tribunal's decision are set out in the reasons of the trial judge: see NAEH v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] FCA 186. (Those reasons may be found on the Federal Court's website: www.fedcourt.gov.au.)

NADC v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

1 This is an appeal from a decision of Hill J, dismissing the appellant's application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") affirming a decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister to refuse to grant a protection visa to the appellant. The relevant facts and the grounds on which the appellant sought review of the Tribunal's decision are set out in the reasons of the trial judge: see NADC v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] FCA 201. (Those reasons may be found on the Federal Court's website: www.fedcourt.gov.au.)

NADX v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

1 This is an appeal from a decision of Madgwick J, rejecting the appellant's application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") affirming a decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister to refuse to grant a protection visa to the appellant. The relevant facts and the grounds on which the appellant sought review of the Tribunal's decision are set out in the reasons of the trial judge: see NADX v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] FCA 289. (Those reasons may be found on the Federal Court's website: www.fedcourt.gov.au.)

NAFW v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

1 This is an appeal from a decision of Wilcox J, rejecting the appellant's application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") affirming a decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister to refuse applications for protection visas by the appellant and her husband. The appellant's husband is not a party to the appeal, and was not a party to the application before the primary judge. The relevant facts and the grounds on which the appellant sought review of the Tribunal's decision are set out in the reasons of the trial judge: see NAFW v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] FCA 311. (Those reasons can be found on the Federal Court's website: www.fedcourt.gov.au.)

NAGW v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

1 This is an appeal from a decision of Wilcox J, rejecting the appellants' application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") affirming a decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister to refuse protection visas to six persons of Bangladesh nationality. The relevant facts and the grounds on which the appellants sought review of the Tribunal's decision are set out in the reasons of the trial judge: see NAGW v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] FCA 272. (Those reasons can be found on the Federal Court's website: www.fedcourt.gov.au.)

NAEV v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003]

1 This is an appeal from a decision of Branson J, rejecting the appellant's application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") affirming a decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister to refuse him a protection visa. The relevant facts and the grounds on which the appellant sought review of the Tribunal's decision are set out in the reasons of the trial judge: see NAEV v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] FCA 160. (Those reasons can be found on the Federal Court's website: www.fedcourt.gov.au.) The appellant claims to fear persecution in Bangladesh due to his political and religious opinions.

Jin v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 245 (16

MIGRATION - application for a protection visa - South Korean national - whether appellant has a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of her political opinion -appellant's personal circumstances and health not relevant to the grant or refusal of a protection visa

SAAF v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 79 (28

1 This is an appeal from a decision of Finn J made on 4 October 2001. His Honour dismissed an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) made on 13 February 2001. By that decision the Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the respondent, the Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs, not to grant the appellant a protection visa.

WAAI v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 65 (6

2 This is an appeal from an order of a judge of the court, French J, dismissing an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal refusing to issue a protection visa to the appellant, "WAAI".

Mchinangome v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 476, 476(1)

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Rajalingam (1999) 93 FCR 220 referred to

Shabooti v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 68

MIGRATION - appeal - no error in primary judge's reasons

WAAU v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 67 (7

1 All the judges have read the papers in this case and heard what the appellant has said, through an interpreter. For myself I am unable to find any error in what French J has said in his reasons for judgment. In a case like this, particularly where a person is not represented by a lawyer, the Court looks again at the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal. We read it with care. Then we read the decision of the judge to whom you appealed, French J. Then we read any written material that you have given us, which happened in this case. Then we listen to you in court here today.

Kone v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 66 (6

MIGRATION - appeal - no error in primary judge's reasons

Yakubu v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 57 (

MIGRATION - appeal from single Judge to Full court - whether primary Judge erred in holding that decision of Refugee Review Tribunal had not involved an error of law within the meaning of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (s 476) - whether primary Judge erred in holding Tribunal had not failed to take into account relevant material or made other errors of law which constitute jurisdictional error - whether primary Judge erred in holding Tribunal had not failed to consider consequences if it were wrong on findings of fact - where appellant Liberian citizen of Krahn ethnicity - no reviewable error of law.

Awa v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002]

MIGRATION - exercise of discretion to refuse interdependency visa - application of ministerial direction by tribunal on review - whether direction fettered tribunal's discretion - whether tribunal decision in error of law

Kaur v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 62 (20

1 The appellant, who is a young Sikh woman and a citizen of India, arrived in Australia on 13 November 1995. On 1 February 1996 she lodged an application for a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"). On 8 May 1997 a delegate of the respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs ("the Minister"), refused to grant a protection visa. On 28 May 1997 the appellant sought review of that decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). On 4 February 2000, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant a protection visa.

Kola v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 59 (18

MIGRATION - ethnic Albanians from Serbia flee to Albania and thence to Australia - whether RRT extended an invitation to the appellants in compliance with s 425(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) - whether the primary Judge had erred in applying the "effective protection" test - whether the RRT had failed to undertake inquiries on the effective protection issue - whether evidence to support the RRT's finding that the appellants could enjoy effective protection in Albania.

Bakhtyar v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 49

1 The Court is of the view that this appeal must be dismissed. We have considered all the arguments that have been put both in writing and orally today by Mr Gethin, who appears for the appellant pro bono. We note that the learned primary judge looked at this matter in very carefully considered reasons for judgment. For the reasons his Honour has given, we see no reason why he should have granted relief in respect of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal. The appeal should be dismissed and we would not dissent in any way from the reasons of the learned primary judge. The order, therefore, is that the appeal be dismissed with costs.

A v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (includescorrigendum d

MIGRATION - judicial review - Refugee Review Tribunal - whether Tribunal assessed real chance of persecution - whether error of law - alleged failure to have regard to relevant considerations - alleged jurisdictional error - appellant in substance seeking merits review - no question of principle - appeal dismissed.

Abidin v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 54 (

MIGRATION - lodgment of application for review - constructive lodgment - whether application "lodged" where applicant had done all that he was able to do - where applicant in detention and entirely dependent upon the executive for communication with the Court - validity of ss 478(1) and 478(2) of Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

Qubaiaa v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 5

1 On 10 August 2001 Hely J dismissed an application by the appellant to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the RRT") that the appellant was not entitled to a protection visa.

Abedi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 43 (6

1 This is an appeal from a judgment of a single judge of the Court, Hely J. His Honour dismissed an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the RRT"). The RRT decided that the appellant was not entitled to a protection visa.

Karimi v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 45

1 The appellant is an Iranian national. On 13 February 2001 he lodged an application for a protection visa. This was a short time after his arrival in Australia. The Minister's delegate refused to grant a class XA visa and the appellant applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal for review of that decision.

Akbar v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 44 (5

1 This matter is before the Full Court in the following circumstances. On 26 July 2001 a single judge of this court, Madgwick J, dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision affirming the decision of a delegate of the respondent not to grant the applicant a protection visa. In addition to dismissing that application, Madgwick J made an order that the applicant pay the respondent's costs. A notice of appeal was filed on 15 August 2001 from that judgment.

Lam v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 36 (1 M

MIGRATION - purported decision of respondent Minister under subs 501A(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) refusing application for grant of visa - power of Minister depended on whether Administrative Appeals Tribunal had made a decision "to grant a visa to a person as a result of not exercising the power conferred by subsection 501(1) to refuse to grant a visa to a person" (par 501A(1)(c)) - Tribunal had decided favourably to appellant but had not, in terms, decided to grant a visa to him, and had remitted matter to Minister - primary Judge construed legislation in a non-literal way so that the Tribunal's decision favourable to appellant enlivened Minister's power under subs 501A(2) - after primary Judge's decision, Migration Legislation Amendment Act (No 1) 2001 (Cth) passed and commenced on 27 September 2001 - amending Act amended relevant provision (par 501A(1)(c)) retrospectively as on and from 1 June 1999 - relevant effect of amendment was to alter par 501A(1)(c) so that it read "not to exercise the power conferred by subsection 501(1) to refuse to grant a visa to the person" - effect of amendment to destroy ground of appeal relied on - nature of appeal from single Judge to Full Court

WAAT v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs(includes corrigendu

NOTE: CHANGES TO THE MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION (MNC)
The Federal Court adopted a new medium neutral citation (FCAFC) for Full Court judgments effective from 1 January 2002. Single Judge judgments will not be affected and will retain the FCA medium neutral citation.

Ji v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 33 (27 F

1 The appellant is a citizen of the People's Republic of China. He first arrived in Australia on 27 December 1989 as the holder of a Student Visa Class H33 which expired on 7 August 1990. He lodged an application for refugee status on 7 August 1990 and his spouse lodged a separate application for refugee status, which included the appellant as a secondary applicant, on 13 November 1991. The appellant's application for refugee status was refused on 17 March 1993 and he did not seek review of that refusal. The spouse's application was refused on 10 May 1993 and an application for review was lodged with the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT). The RRT affirmed the decision on 24 September 1993. However, the appellant and his spouse had departed Australia prior to this on 22 September 1993. On 21 November 1996 the appellant returned to Australia as the holder of a Business (Short Stay) Visa Subclass 456 which expired on 21 December 1996. He was not accompanied by his spouse or child on that occasion. On 23 June 1997 he lodged an application for a Business (Long Stay) Visa Sub-class 457 but this was refused on 28 November 1997. A review application was lodged on 31 December 1997 but was not accepted as it was out of time.

Vaq v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 35 (27

1 The question for decision in this appeal is whether the primary judge erred in holding that the appellant had not within the prescribed time applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") for review of the respondent's refusal of his application for a protection visa. The appellant applied for a protection visa on 9 March 2001. A delegate of the respondent refused the application on 3 May 2001. The appellant was notified of the delegate's decision and was taken to have received that notification no later than 10 May 2001. He made an application for review of the decision which was received by the Tribunal on 1 August 2001 ("the Application"). Section 412(1)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act") provides that:

VAO v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 31 (27

MIGRATION - protection visa - whether primary judge erred in dismissing application to review decision of Refugee Review Tribunal - whether Tribunal bound to take into account evidence put to it in appellant's brother's application for protection visa where that evidence was not put before it in appellant's application - whether Tribunal's reliance on "country information" not current at the time of its decision involved an error of law - whether Tribunal's decision affected by actual bias - discussion of difference, if any, between "invincible" and "actual" bias

VAP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 32 (27

1 In our reasons for judgment delivered today in VAO v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 161 we dismissed the appeal in that matter. This appeal was heard together in the appeal in VAO. No separate or distinguishable ground of appeal was raised in this appeal which would result in the appeal being allowed if the appeal in VAO were dismissed. Consequently for the reasons we gave in VAO this appeal will also be dismissed with costs.

Loubany v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 29

MIGRATION - judicial review - refugee status - stateless Palestinian - no error of law - no question of principle.

Loubany v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 29

MIGRATION - judicial review - refugee status - stateless Palestinian - no error of law - no question of principle.

Rajanayake v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC

MIGRATION - appeal from decision of primary judge affirming decision of Refugee Review Tribunal - whether no evidence or other material to justify the making of the decision - whether decision based on facts that did not exist - whether Tribunal failed to address an issue raised by the material and evidence before it - whether Tribunal failed to address the issue of whether the appellant was considered by the police to hold a political opinion sympathetic or supportive of Tamils because of his association with Tamils, as opposed to sympathy or support for the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam - whether appellant had a well-founded fear of persecution

Rahman v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 25 (

MIGRATION - appeal from decision of primary judge affirming decision of Refugee Review Tribunal - where application disclosed no grounds for review - where applicant failed to attend Full Court hearing

Anavaratham v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA

MIGRATION - application for a protection visa - national of Sri Lanka - Refugee Review Tribunal found that "effective protection" was available to the appellant in India, and, in the alternative, that the appellant had no well - founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason in the event of a return to Sri Lanka - whether judge erred in finding that there was no there was no error in the Tribunal's findings.

Soudakov v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 23

MIGRATION - protection visas - application by two children born in Australia - parents previously refused protection visas - claim based on parents' fear of persecution - whether open to Tribunal to make findings of fact it made - whether Court can take account of facts subsequent to Tribunal's decision

Kabir v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 20 (2

1 On 20 February 2002 the Court dismissed the appeals of the appellants with costs. These are the reasons for those orders. The appeal is from an order of a Judge of the Court dismissing an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent rejecting the claims of the appellants for protection visas under the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28 July 1951 as amended by the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees done at New York on 31 January 1967 (which together we will refer to as the Convention).

Bahambari v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 1

2 The appellant arrived in Australia on 10 October 2000 and applied for a protection visa on 1 November 2000. That application was refused by a delegate of the respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs ("the Minister"), on 12 December 2000. On 19 December 2000, the appellant applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") for review of the delegate's decision not to grant a protection visa. On 1 June 2001 the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant a protection visa.

"H" v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 18 (1

MIGRATION - protection visa - application for review - time for making application - notification of decision to migration agent - when deemed to have been received - notification to visa applicant may be ignored

NAAF v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 17 (18

4 By way of factual background, the appellant is a Mongolian citizen of Chinese ethnicity who was born on 30 June 1959 in Mongolia where he spent his childhood. He obtained university qualifications in economics, philosophy and history. From 1983 to 1991 he worked as a teacher and as a science researcher. From 1991 to 1996 he was self-employed, trading in commodities. In that period he travelled to and from China many times in the course of his business. He served in the Army Reserve at various times between 1983 and 1996. From 1991 until October 1996, he lived in the same house in Ulan Batur in Mongolia and had never been arrested or detained.

Sahtout v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 16

MIGRATION - appeal from decision not to grant protection visa - stateless Palestinian resident in Syria - registered with United Nations Relief and Works Agencies for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) - claim of well-founded fear of persecution if returned to Syria - whether primary judge erred in upholding Refugee Review Tribunal decision - whether any grounds for appeal

MIGRATION - whether art 1D excludes appellant from the operation of Convention - where Tribunal assumed appellant not excluded - where primary judge found no error in Tribunal's approach

Abila v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 15 (1

2 The appellant claims to be a 19 year old citizen of Uganda. He arrived in Australia on 13 May 2000 after stowing away on a marine tanker from the port of Mombassa in Kenya. On 3 July 2000 he applied for a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) on the ground that if he is returned to Uganda he will be persecuted for reasons of his race. A delegate of the respondent refused that application on 12 February 2001. On 26 April 2001 the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) affirmed that decision. The appellant applied for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision. On 28 August 2001 Tamberlin J dismissed his application. This is an appeal from the judgment of Tamberlin J.

WAAY v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 14 (15

2 This is an appeal from a decision of Carr J given on 11 October 2001. His Honour dismissed an application by the appellant for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal given on 12 April 2001. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent made on 15 December 2000 not to grant a protection visa to the applicant under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). As the application to the Court was made on 27 April 2001, the Act in the form in which it appeared before the amendments to the Act effected by the Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Act 2001 (Cth) applies and my references to the act are references to the Act as it stood prior to 2 October 2001.

Joam v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 13 (

1 This is an appeal from a decision of a judge of the Court dismissing the appellant's application for review under s 476(1) the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal rejecting his claim to a protection visa.

Miandoab v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 12

1 DRUMMOND J: This is an appeal from Hely J who refused to grant review under s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") to refuse the appellant a protection visa. The appellant is a citizen of Iran who arrived in Australia on 8 October 2000.

WAAR v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 11 (

1 DRUMMOND J: The appellant appeals from a decision of Hill J given ex tempore on 22 August 2001. His appeal was filed on 9 October 2001. That is well out of the twenty-one days allowed to bring an appeal under the Rules of this Court. However, Hill J's certified reasons for judgment were only issued on 18 September 2001, and though the appellant's right is to appeal from the judgment given on 22 August, in his notice of appeal he identifies the judgment by reference to the date the certified reasons were issued.

2 The Minister has objected on the ground that the appeal is out of time and cannot be dealt with unless the appellant first obtains leave to appeal out of time. The appellant's appeal was lodged with the Court within the twenty-one day period after the certified reasons of 18 September 2001 became available. In these circumstances, the Court would not reject the appellant's appeal on the technical ground, that he put his notice of appeal in too late, if there was any real merit in his appeal.

Hussaini v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC

MIGRATION - refugees - judicial review - Refugee Review Tribunal - appellant claiming to be fleeing Taliban persecution in Afghanistan - Tribunal finds appellant not an Afghani national - no finding as to country of origin - whether Tribunal erred in law

Jan v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 9 (14 F

1 This is an appeal from the decision of Mansfield J on 29 August 2001, dismissing an application for review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") to confirm the decision of the delegate of the respondent Minister refusing to grant the appellant, Salam Jan, a protection visa pursuant to the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"). The proceeding continues to be governed by the Act as it stood prior to the 1991 amendments.

Mohnsen v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 8 (

MIGRATION - applicant claims to have a well-founded fear of persecution - the Tribunal rejected the claim - no reviewable error

"SAAH" v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 6 (1

MIGRATION - applicant claims to have a well-founded fear of persecution as a former army conscript in Algeria - whether the Tribunal addressed the claim of the applicant - whether the Tribunal based its decision on a fact that did not exist

Rahman v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 5 (1

MIGRATION - time limit for lodging application for review - operation of s 478 of Migration Act 1958 - validity of s 487(2) of Migration Act 1958 - distinction between statutes of limitation and limitation provisions - whether new right created or condition placed on existing right

X v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 3 (7 Febr

MIGRATION - protection visa - hearing by Refugee Review Tribunal - following hearing, Tribunal sought comment from applicant about information it had obtained - applicant also submitted his diary - explained diary relevant to his activities in 1988 - diary written in a language other than English - Tribunal refused to take account of contents of diary - whether Tribunal entitled to refuse because diary not in English and no translation provided - whether Tribunal entitled to refuse because it had already determined issue of well-founded fear against applicant based on his 1988 activities - relevance of diary entries

Shumilov v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 1

MIGRATION - appeal from single Judge to Full Court - whether primary Judge erred in holding that RRT decision had not involved error of law within meaning of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 476(1)(e) - where evidentiary material before RRT included cable containing statement that Uzbekistani police might subject ethnic Russian Uzbekistanis to closer and more regular attention than ethnic Uzbek Uzbekistanis, although difference in treatment would be marginal - whether reasonably open to read statement as asserting some chance whose probability unspecified that Uzbekistani police might subject ethnic Russian Uzbekistanis to such attention - whether Court should infer that RRT adopted that reading and that it led RRT to conclude no real chance Uzbekistani police would subject appellants to such attention.

Subramaniam v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC

MIGRATION - judicial review - protection visa - expert medical and psychological evidence - whether hearsay - whether taken into account - scope of review under s 476(1)(b), (c) or (e) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) - meaning of jurisdictional error

NACV v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002]

MIGRATION - privative clause decision - citizen of Bangladesh - appeal against refusal of application for protection visa - whether primary judge erred in upholding the Refugee Review Tribunal's findings as to the appellant's credibility - Hickman conditions

WACB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 246 (2

MIGRATION - time limit for lodging application for review - notification of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal ("Tribunal") - whether distinction between "decision" and "reasons for decision" - whether statement must be provided in a language understood by an applicant - whether fact appellant a minor affected validity of notification of Tribunal's decision

WACA v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 163 (3

MIGRATION - time limit for lodging application for review - notification of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal - whether distinction between "decision" and "reasons for decision" - whether statement must be provided in a language understood by an applicant

EVIDENCE - no admissible evidence as to age of appellant - whether Minister under duty to satisfy himself as to age of appellant - whether appellant had to lead evidence as to age

NACC v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2

1 This is an appeal from a decision of a Judge of this Court given on 12 March 2002, dismissing an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") of 25 October 2001. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs ("the Minister") refusing to grant the appellant a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"). The criterion for the grant of such a visa is that the applicant is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951 as amended by the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees of 31 January 1967 ("the Convention").

WAFO v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002]

MIGRATION - refugee - refusal of protection visa - appeal from single judge dismissing application for review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal - whether evidence or other material to justify decision - whether error of law

WAFN v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002]

MIGRATION - refugee - refusal of protection visa - appeal from single judge dismissing application for review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal - whether evidence or other material to justify decision - whether error of law

NACB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002]

1 This is an appeal from a decision of a judge of the Court, Stone J, given on 6 February 2002 dismissing an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"). On 25 October 2001, the Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent, which decision was made nearly four years before on 27 November 1997, refusing the appellant a protection visa.

Secretary, Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai

MIGRATION � conditions of detention � duty of care owed to detainee � whether duty owed by the Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs � nature and content of duty � absence of regulatory regime

PROCEDURE � appeal from interlocutory order to transfer detainee to alternative detention centre � whether serious question to be tried � terms of order akin to final order

NANO v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs &

1 These appeals arise from applications for relief made under s39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 to review decisions of the Migration Review Tribunal ("the MRT") made on 21 March 2003. The MRT affirmed decisions of a delegate of the respondent made on 7 March 2003 to refuse to grant the appellants Bridging Visa E (Class WE) visas.

SDAV v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs ; Mini

MIGRATION - Migration Act 1958 (Cth) - jurisdictional error - privative clause - jurisdiction of Refugee Review Tribunal (`Tribunal') - failure of Tribunal to address a central element of the visa applicants' claims - visa applicants Iranian women subject to domestic violence - interpretation of phrase `well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of membership of a particular social group' - discriminatory inactivity of State authorities

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairsv SCAR [2003]

MIGRATION - judicial review - jurisdictional error - procedural fairness - applicant distressed at news of death of father - applicant taking medication - unchallenged evidence of psychologist that applicant not in a fit state to represent himself - tribunal not aware of these factors - credibility findings by tribunal based, in part, upon the vagueness of the evidence given by the applicant -whether jurisdictional error by the tribunal.

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairsv Applicant VE

MIGRATION � Refugee Review Tribunal � procedural fairness � adverse information given in confidence by informer � Tribunal declined to take that information into account � no denial of procedural fairness in failing to disclose that information to applicant

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v SBAA [2002] FCAFC 195 (2

IMMIGRATION - Refugee claim - Challenge to decision of Refugee Review Tribunal refusing protection visa application - Critical issue for determination by the Tribunal was whether the applicant was a national of Afghanistan - Alleged failure of Tribunal to set out findings on all material questions of fact or to refer to evidence or other material on which its findings were based - Whether this failure gave rise to a permissible ground of review - Failure of Tribunal to consider a report by a linguistic expert as to the applicant's country of origin.

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs v WAFJ [2004]

MIGRATION � judicial review � Refugee Review Tribunal � procedural fairness � oral hearing � repeated interruptions � failure by Tribunal to allow applicant to put forward his case in his own way � reference by Tribunal to country information received from �friends or colleagues� � confrontational approach � allegations of untruthfulness by Tribunal during hearing � sarcasm � rudeness � failure to provide fair hearing � want of procedural fairness � jurisdictional error � decision set aside by Federal Magistrate � appeal dismissed.

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v Griffit

MIGRATION � cancellation of visa � alleged failure to give reasons for cancellation � whether failure to give reasons infected decision with jurisdictional error � whether Wednesbury unreasonableness shown � whether denial of procedural fairness � whether failure to consider interests of the child

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairsv Li [2004] FC

1 The Migration Review Tribunal affirmed a decision made by a delegate of the Minister to cancel the respondent�s sub-class 560 (Student) visa. The Tribunal did so on the ground that the respondent had breached condition 8202 by not achieving the prescribed attendance rate (80 per cent) of lectures and failing to achieve an academic result certified by the education provider to be at least satisfactory.

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v Huynh [

MIGRATION � Visa cancellation � Determination by Minister that respondent failed to pass the character test under s 501 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) on account of conviction for statutory supply of heroin � Minister exercised his discretion to cancel respondent�s resident return visa � Minister furnished by Department with remarks of sentencing judge and decision of Court of Criminal Appeal but not with reasons for judgment of Court of Criminal Appeal � Court of Criminal Appeal reduced respondent�s non-parole period and accepted that respondent was acting to assist her heroin-addicted son rather than as a principal for personal profit � Nature of Minister�s discretion under s 501 � Whether Minister�s decision vitiated by failure to take account of a relevant consideration � Whether Minister had an obligation to seek out up to date information � Whether Minister relied upon inaccurate and misleading material which may be characterised as irrelevant to the exercise of Minister�s discretion.

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairsv Awan [2003]

MIGRATION - visa - student visa - Migration Review Tribunal relied on prior inconsistent statements of applicant to make negative finding on credit - whether obliged to provide particulars of information, and explanation of its relevance, to applicant - whether requirement to do so imperative duty on Tribunal or inviolable limitation on exercise of its power - whether jurisdictional error - criterion whether applicant a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student, having regard to various matters - whether Tribunal erred by treating those matters as criteria - whether primary judge erred in exercise of discretion - whether discretion should be exercised against appellant

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairsv NAOS of 2002

MIGRATION - appeal by Minister against judgment setting aside decision of Refugee Review Tribunal - attack on finding in court below that Tribunal failed to exercise its powers in good faith - appeal allowed.

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs v VFAY [2003]

MIGRATION - Appeal from Magistrates Court - whether Refugee Review Tribunal erred in failing to consider whether unaccompanied minors in Afghanistan constituted a particular social group - RRT finding that even if there was such a group, any harm would not be by reason of the applicant's membership of the group - no jurisdictional error.

Appeal from Magistrates Court - whether RRT erred in failing to consider whether unaccompanied minors in Afghanistan constituted a particular social group - RRT finding that "young males without a protector, guardian, or any other means of support" did not constitute a particular social group - no need to consider the alternative formulation.

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairsv Huynh [2004]

MIGRATION � appeal from Federal Magistrate � s 501(2) Migration Act 1958 (Cth) - cancellation of BB 155 Resident Return visa � respondent entered Australia on Class 200 Refugees visa � whether Minister obliged to consider respondent�s refugee status � whether evidence established respondent has refugee status in Australia

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairsv Wong [2002]

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - interrogatories - leave granted to the applicant to administer interrogatories - whether error of principle in exercise of discretion - discretion miscarried where order to answer interrogatories rested entirely on a bare allegation with no foundation.

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairsv NAMW [2004]

MIGRATION � application for a protection visa � whether country information was part of the reason for the decision � whether country information is non-disclosable information � whether failure to disclose country information resulted in a denial of procedural fairness

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v WABQ [2002] FCAFC 329

MIGRATION - appeal from decision of single Judge - applicant stateless Palestinian resident in Syria and registered with United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) - whether applicant excluded from the general operation of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees by Article 1(D) - construction of Article 1(D) - reference to historical background and international interpretations of Article 1(D) - Tribunal made incorrect findings of historical facts concerning UNRWA and the situation in Palestine - whether Court bound to accept Tribunal's findings - matter remitted to Tribunal for further consideration.

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairsv W306/01A [20

MIGRATION - judicial review - protection visa - Refugee Review Tribunal - confusion about applicant's case - alleged misunderstanding of applicant's evidence - whether inadequacies in reasoning amounted to failure to perform statutory function - whether failure to exercise jurisdiction - logical error not equivalent to failure to exercise function - whether failure to take into account relevant factors - no error of jurisdiction or law - appeal allowed.

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairsv Schwart [200

MIGRATION - transitional (permanent) visa - permission to remain indefinitely in Australia - where Minister purported to cancel a `Subclass 155 - 5 Year Resident Return Visa' - where respondent is the holder of a transitional (permanent) visa - whether the Minister cancelled the only visa held by the respondent - construction of Memorandum to Minister

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v Kim [20

MIGRATION � regulations � whether ultra vires � whether operating when validity of application is considered or when application is considered � condition created by regulation arising after application made

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairsv Walsh [2002]

CITIZENSHIP - application for registration of Australian citizenship by descent under s 10C of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 (Cth) - applicant born in Papua - whether applicant was born "outside of Australia" - effect of the granting of independence to Papua New Guinea in 1975 on Australian citizenship - whether applicant entitled to permanent residence in Australia at time of independence or after independence - definition of "Australia" in Australian Citizenship Act 1948 (Cth)

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairsv Hollis [2004

MIGRATION � appeal � whether respondent unlawfully removed from Australia � applicant a migrant and British subject in 1971 � judgment in his favour delivered at first instance two weeks before High Court decision in Shaw v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs � whether respondent should have leave to raise new issue by way of Notice of Contention on appeal � leave granted � whether respondent�s entry permit remained in force despite his departure from Australia

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairsv WAIK [2003]

MIGRATION � protection visa � membership of a particular social group � whether Refugee Review Tribunal failed to consider the question of whether the applicant was a member of a particular social group � where applicant a member of a sub-tribe in Afghanistan � where applicant feared �extra-judicial killing� at the hands of members of a different sub-tribe � where Governor of province a member of the different sub-tribe

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Applicant M [2002] FCAFC

MIGRATION - protection visa - whether conscientious objector in Afghanistan would have well-founded fear of persecution by reason of "political opinion"- whether "political opinion" of conscientious objection imputed - whether Afghan society perceived conscientious objectors as comprising a "particular social group".

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairsv Sochorova [2

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - extension of time sought where no explanation offered for not complying with Federal Court Rules - absence of any material injustice that would result from declining to grant extension of time sought - proposed appeal is in essence seeking to appeal from findings and reasons rather than a judgment or order as required by s 24 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v "X" [2002] FCAFC 93 (8

COURTS - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - costs - whether exceptional, special or unusual circumstances justify a departure from the usual rule that costs follow the event

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairsv VFAI of 2002

MIGRATION - refugees - claim of conscientious objection to compulsory military service - whether primary judge erred in concluding that the Refugee Review Tribunal did not deal with the case put

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairsv Kwan [2002]

The appellant has filed written submissions contending that the learned primary judge was in error in two respects. First, as to the operation of the provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) that form the basis of the decision, and secondly, as to the operation in a case such as this of s 474 of the Migration Act.

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairsv Kord [2002]

MIGRATION - Determination of refugee status - review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal - meaning of "persecution" - whether discrimination constitutes persecution for a Convention reason - whether Refugee Review Tribunal committed an error of law

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v W157/00A(includes corrig

MIGRATION - cancellation of visa under s 501 of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) - a signed departmental briefing paper not a written notice which sets out the reasons for the decision made - failure to give the written notice required by s 501G(1)(e) not a ground of review under s 476(1)(a) - not "in connection with the making of the decision" - whether best interests of children taken into account - not possible to demonstrate failure in absence of notice setting out reasons of decision maker

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Applicant S [2002] FCAFC

MIGRATION - protection visa - respondent claimed fear of persecution by reason of membership of a "particular social group" - whether able-bodied Afghan males could comprise a "particular social group" - whether evidence before Refugee Review Tribunal supported claim that Afghan society perceived young able-bodied men as comprising separate group

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v Applica

MIGRATION - protection visa - claim of fear of persecution of Sri Lankan on ground of race (Tamil) and membership of social group (Hindu priests) - whether failure of Refugee Review Tribunal to put to applicant report of arrest of Catholic priests a denial of procedural fairness - whether failure of Tribunal to mention report about attacks on Tamil priests in Colombo supported inference that Tribunal had not received report with the consequence that the applicant had been misled

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairsv George [2004

MIGRATION � cancellation of visa under s 501(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) �s 501(2) contemplates opportunity to endeavour to persuade the Minister not to exercise his or her discretion to cancel the visa in the event of Minster finding the visa holder does not pass the character test � Minister�s mistaken belief that visa holder had been notified amounted to jurisdictional error

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE � failure to notify visa holder of intention to cancel visa under s 501(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) - visa holder not accorded procedural fairness because s 510 (2) contemplates the opportunity to be heard prior to cancellation

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairsv Ball [2004]

MIGRATION � character test under s 501(7)(d) � substantial criminal record � concurrent sentences � term of each sentence imposed or term of imprisonment for which the sentence or sentences were imposed

MIGRATION � s 503A and the Minster�s natural justice obligations in relation to protected information when the Minister personally makes a decision under s 501 � are reasonable steps required to divest the information of the protection accorded by s 503A � is the Minister required to divulge protected information

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v N989/01 [2002] FCAFC 237

MIGRATION - refugee - refusal of a protection visa - Refugee Review Tribunal decision based on strong credibility findings against the respondent - disbelieved respondent's claims - whether Tribunal erred in failing to consider the possibility that claims upon which respondent relied may have occurred.

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairsv SGJB [2003]

MIGRATION - judicial review - jurisdictional error - procedural fairness - actual bias - whether denial of natural justice deprived applicant of the possibility of a successful outcome - opportunity to call witness before Refugee Review Tribunal

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairsv VFAD of 2002

MIGRATION - protection visa - decision record signed but not dated by delegate of Minister - not communicated - whether grant of a visa - applicant seeks declaration that he has been granted a visa and is a lawful non-citizen - whether Court has power to make an interlocutory order for release pending hearing and determination of application

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairsv SBAN [2002]

MIGRATION - appeals by Minister against decisions setting aside decisions of Refugee Review Tribunal - attack on findings of bad faith

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairsv Craig [2004]

MIGRATION � deportation order � letter sent to deportee stating that no further action will be taken to effect his deportation � whether the deportation order was revoked

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v W64/01A [2003] FCAFC 12

MIGRATION - judicial review - protection visa - Refugee Review Tribunal - well-founded fear of persecution - whether "real chance" of persecution - approach to decision-making by Tribunal - implausibility of claims - non-acceptance of claims - finding claims fabricated - whether implausibility equated to finding of improbability - whether findings excluded any real doubt of occurrence of claimed events of persecution - whether Tribunal failed to undertake "real chance" analysis - relevance of findings of consistency in claims - relevance of absence of adverse findings based upon demeanour - Tribunal reasons to be read as a whole - findings excluded doubt - no error on part of Tribunal - appeal allowed - decision of primary judge setting aside Tribunal decision set aside

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v Cisinsk

MIGRATION � detention pending deportation � delay in executing deportation order � whether continued detention authorised � construction of s 253 Migration Act 1958 (Cth) � whether implied limitation restricting period of detention to a reasonable period necessary to complete the removal of deportee � limitation on detention pursuant to Constitutional separation of powers

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairsv Hicks [2004]

MIGRATION - judicial review - New Zealand citizen - cancellation of visa - failure to pass character test under s 501(7)(d) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) � whether applicant has a substantial criminal record � sentences imposed to operate concurrently - effective term of imprisonment ten months - nominal total of sentences twenty five months - whether concurrent sentences to be totalled for purposes of character test - concurrent sentences not to be totalled - totalling of concurrent terms constituted jurisdictional error � appeal dismissed

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v Yu [200

Condition 8202 must be complied with and the Minister is obliged to cancel a visa subject to that condition if satisfied that the visa holder has not complied with the condition. Subclause 3(b) of condition 8202 is expressed in a curious way. Read literally, the condition has several elements. The first is that the holder of the visa achieves an academic result having a particular characteristic. The second is that the result is at least satisfactory. However, it is not simply a satisfactory result in some abstract but objective sense. Rather, it must be a result which is certified by the education provider as at least satisfactory. On this literal reading, a visa holder may achieve a result which is at least satisfactory but unless the education provider certifies to that effect, the condition is not satisfied. The certification is an essential element of the condition.

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Saravanan(includes corri

MIGRATION - Tourist (Short Stay) visa subclass 676 - whether primary judge erred in allowing application for review of decision of Migration Review Tribunal - whether Tribunal failed to address the wrong question in determining whether respondent satisfied the criteria for the grant of a Tourist (Short Stay) visa - construction of the phrase "a purpose related to business"

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairsv WAAG [2003]

MIGRATION - appeal to Full Court - appeal allowed - orders not entered - application to re-open following High Court decision - allegation of apprehended bias - failure to show possibility of different result

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairsv Al Masri [20

MIGRATION � mandatory detention of an unlawful non-citizen pending removal from Australia � whether continued detention authorised where no real likelihood or prospect of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future

Page :  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  80 
Australia Immigration Consultants and Online Australia Visa Assessments for immigration to Australia