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

Zhang v Minister for Immigration [2003] FMCA 67 (24 February 2003)

MIGRATION - Visa - protection visa - Refugee Review Tribunal - application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal affirming a decision of the delegate of the Minister not to grant a protection visa to the Applicant - Applicant a citizen of India - claim of a well-founded persecution by Muslims - review of the merits of an administrative decision not within the scope of a judicial review.

SZDMA v Minister for Immigration [2004] FMCA 908 (1 November 2004)

MIGRATION - Refugee - invitation to Tribunal hearing - procedural fairness.

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2 In the course of my reasons for judgment, I said (at [32]) that `Australia has not withdrawn its reservations with respect to Art 28 and Art 32 of the Refugees Convention'.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.

SZAUF v Minisgter for Immigration [2004] FMCA 862 (15 November 2004)

MIGRATION - Review of RRT decision - where Tribunal is of the view that treatment received by the applicant did not amount to persecution.

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.

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  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  105  106  107  108  109  110  111  112  113  114  115  116  117  118  119  120  121  122  123  124  125  126  127  128  129  130  131  132  133  134  135  136  137  138  139  140  141  142  143  144  145  146  147  148  149  150  151  152  153  154  155  156  157  158  159  160  161  162  163  164  165  166  167  168  169  170  171  172  173  174  175  176  177  178  179  180  181  182  183  184  185  186  187  188  189  190  191  192  193  194  195  196  197  198  199  200  201  202  203  204  205  206  207  208  209  210  211  212  213  214  215  216  217  218  219  220  221  222  223  224  225  226  227  228  229  230  231  232  233  234  235  236  237  238  239  240  241  242  243  244  245  246  247  248  249  250  251  252  253  254  255  256  257  258  259  260  261  262  263  264  265  266  267  268  269  270  271  272  273  274  275  276  277  278  279  280  281  282  283  284  285  286  287  288  289  290  291  292  293  294  295  296  297  298  299  300  301  302  303  304  305  306  307  308  309  310  311  312  313  314  315  316  317  318  319  320  321  322  323  324  325  326  327  328  329  330  331  332  333  334  335  336  337  338  339  340  341  342  343  344  345  346  347  348  349  350  351  352  353  354  355  356  357  358  359  360  361  362 
Australia Immigration Consultants and Online Australia Visa Assessments for immigration to Australia