 |
Australian Immigration Specialists - Australian Immigration Consultants
Online Australian Visa Assessments for immigration to Australia
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
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
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 |
