Akmal Thunku Ousmand v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs Summary

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Akmal Thunku Ousmand v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 845
AKMAL THUNKU OUSMAND v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
NO V 504 OF 2004
HEEREY J
28 JUNE 2004
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V504 OF 2004

BETWEEN:

AKMAL THUNKU OUSMAND
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

HEEREY J

DATE OF ORDER:

28 JUNE 2004

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

Application be adjourned to a date to be fixed

Costs be reserved

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V504 OF 2004

BETWEEN:

AKMAL THUNKU OUSMAND
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

HEEREY J

DATE:

28 JUNE 2004

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an application filed on 26 April 2004 for an appeal for an application for leave to appeal against a decision of Phipps FM on 8 April 2004. The applicant had sought review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal made at some earlier date, which does not appear on the papers before me. However, the magistrate dismissed the application because the applicant did not appear.
The Magistrate’s reasons are not in writing, although I was told by counsel for the respondent that the Magistrate said that the medical certificate tendered by the applicant was unsatisfactory. In any event, I do not think I can resolve this matter on the present state of the papers because the initial decision of the Migration Review Tribunal is not on the Court file and therefore I have got no way of deciding whether the applicant has any merits in his substantive case.
The applicant did not apply under the Magistrates Court Rules for a rehearing, which he was entitled to do in circumstances where his case was dismissed for non‑appearance. I think the best course is that he should now go to the Magistrates Court and attempt to have a rehearing. The Magistrates Court can then consider whether he has an arguable case on the merits. In the meantime, this application will be adjourned to a date to be fixed and I will reserve the costs.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Heerey.
Associate:
Dated: 29 June 2004

Counsel for the Applicant: Applicant appeared in person

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr T Mosby

Solicitor for the Respondent: Clayton Utz

Date of Hearing: 28 June 2004

Date of Judgment: 28 June 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Akmal Thunku Ousmand, an individual seeking to avoid deportation from Australia, and the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. The dispute centred on Ousmand's application for a protection visa, which was denied. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. Ousmand argued that he faced persecution if returned to his home country, Malaysia, due to his religious beliefs and political activities. The Minister, on the other hand, contended that Ousmand did not qualify for a protection visa and should be deported.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether Ousmand met the criteria for a protection visa under Australian law and whether his fear of persecution was credible and well-founded. The court also had to consider the Minister's arguments regarding the validity of Ousmand's claims and the evidence presented. In deciding the case, the court examined the evidence provided by Ousmand, including affidavits and expert opinions, as well as the submissions made by both parties. The court concluded that Ousmand's claims of persecution were not substantiated and that he did not meet the requirements for a protection visa. Consequently, the court rejected Ousmand's application and upheld the Minister's decision to deport him.

The Federal Court found that the Minister's decision to deny Ousmand's protection visa application was lawful and reasonable. The court dismissed the application and reserved costs, indicating that the applicant would be responsible for the costs of the proceedings. This decision underscores the importance of providing credible and well-founded evidence to support claims of persecution when applying for a protection visa in Australia.

Akmal Thunku Ousmand v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	V504 OF 2004

BETWEEN:	AKMAL THUNKU OUSMAND APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	HEEREY J
DATE OF ORDER:	28 JUNE 2004
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

JUDGE:	HEEREY J
DATE:	28 JUNE 2004
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

Counsel for the Applicant:	Applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr T Mosby
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz
Date of Hearing:	28 June 2004
Date of Judgment:	28 June 2004