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

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.

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

NADF v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 96 (20 May 2003)
Last Updated: 20 May 2003


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NADF v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 96

MIGRATION - appeal from judicial review of Refugee Review Tribunal - failure to demonstrate jurisdictional error

NADF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 1569 upheld

NADF v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs

N10 of 2003

HEEREY, EMMETT & HELY JJ

20 May 2003

SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA



NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N10 OF 2003




BETWEEN:
NADF

APPELLANT


AND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT


JUDGES:
HEEREY, EMMETT AND HELY JJ


DATE OF ORDER:
20 MAY 2003


WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY




THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed with costs.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA



NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N10 OF 2003




BETWEEN:
NADF

APPELLANT


AND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT




JUDGES:
HEEREY, EMMETT AND HELY JJ


DATE:
20 MAY 2003


PLACE:
SYDNEY





REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
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.

5 The appellant failed to provide further information sought by the Tribunal.

6 His Honour could not discern any basis for holding that the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error. Even if the appellant's claims were taken at face value they would not establish that he feared persecution on one of the five grounds set out in the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

7 The appellant's notice of appeal asserted as grounds:

(1) The procedures that were required by law to be observed in connection with the making of the decision and in connection with conduct for the purpose of making the decision were not observed.
(2) The decision involves errors of law.


8 There was no failure to follow procedures. In particular the Tribunal complied with the requirements of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) in relation to seeking further information and affording the appellant a hearing.

9 No error of law is disclosed.

10 His Honour's decision was plainly correct.

11 The appeal will be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding eleven (11) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Court.




Associate:

Dated: 20 May 2003

Applicant appeared in person:







Counsel for the Respondent:
Mr J D Smith






Solicitor for the Respondent:
Blake Dawson Waldron






Date of Hearing:
20 May 2003






Date of Judgment:
20 May 2003


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