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

MIGRATION - Refugee Review Tribunal - protection visa - application dismissed.

CZAA V Minister for Immigration [2004] FMCA 883 (19 October 2004)

CZAA V Minister for Immigration [2004] FMCA 883 (19 October 2004)
Last Updated: 6 December 2004

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CZAA v MINISTER for IMMIGRATION
[2004] FMCA 883




MIGRATION - Refugee Review Tribunal - protection visa - application dismissed.




Applicant:
CZAA




Respondent:


MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS




File No:


CAG 2 of 2004




Delivered on:


19 October 2004




Delivered at:


Canberra




Hearing date:


19 October 2004




Judgment of:


Brewster FM




REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:


Self Represented




Counsel for the Respondent:


Mr Bromwich




Solicitors for the Respondent:


Clayton Utz




FEDERAL MAGISTRATES

COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT

CANBERRA



CAG2 of 2004

CZAA



Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS





Respondent


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction

1. This is an appeal against a decision made by the Refugee Review Tribunal on 23 December 2003. The Tribunal in its decision affirmed a decision of the delegate of the respondent to refuse the applicant a protection visa. For the purposes of this case I do not need to set out the background facts. They are set out in the decision of the Tribunal and summarised in the respondent's outline and submissions filed in this Court which I adopt for the purpose of this judgment.

2. In essence the complaint of the applicant is that the Tribunal misapprehended the facts. I do not need to go into the details of the applicant's submissions to this effect. Had the Parliament provided that an appeal from the Tribunal to this Court was to be a rehearing

de novo, that is a complete rehearing of the case unfettered by the findings of the Tribunal, then perhaps the result of this appeal would have been different. I say "perhaps" because on its face the analysis of the case by the Tribunal and its findings of fact are, to my mind at any rate, very cogent. However this is not an appeal de novo or anything like it. The Parliament has severely circumscribed the powers of this Court to review decisions of the Tribunal. In particular, in so far as this case is concerned, I am not able to review the facts as found by the Tribunal. Given the way the case has been conducted I do not consider it necessary to embark on a detailed discussion of the law relating to the nature of appeals from the Tribunal. It is sufficient that I summarise it by stating that my task essentially is to determine if the Tribunal approached its task in an appropriate manner and gave the applicant a proper hearing according to law.

3. In my opinion the Tribunal did approach its task in an appropriate manner and did give the applicant a proper hearing according to law. There was nothing put by the applicant to me that would indicate otherwise. I can find no fault in the way the Tribunal approached its task. I propose to dismiss the appeal.

I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Brewster FM

Associate:

Date:
Australia Immigration Consultants and Online Australia Visa Assessments for immigration to Australia