Antonio v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs - [1999] FCA 21

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Antonio v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 21
MIGRATION – application for review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal – whether well-founded fear of persecution – adverse findings as to applicants’ credibility – role of Court on a review – whether the Tribunal acted according to substantial justice and merits of case.
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, Geneva 1951
Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees New York 1967, Article 1A(2)
Migration Act1958 (Cth) ss 36, 420, 424, 425, 426, 430, 476
Chan Yee Kin v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1989) 169 CLR 379 cited
Ram v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1995) 130 ALR 314 cited
Applicant A v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1997) 142 ALR 331 cited
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Singh(1997) 74 FCR 553 cited
Sun v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1997) 81 FCR 71 cited
Sun v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1997) 81 FCR 717 cited
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission(1993) 177 CLR 472 followed
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Su Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 followed
Eshetu v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs(1997) 145 ALR 621 followed
Inderjit Singh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (unreported, judgment delivered 29 October 1998) cited
Calado v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Moore, Mansfield and Emmett JJ; unreported, judgment delivered 2 December 1998) cited
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo (1997) 144 ALR 567 cited
DENRY ANTONIO & LETICIA ANTONIO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
No. DG 8 of 1998
O’LOUGHLIN J
22 JANUARY 1999
ADELAIDE (Heard in Darwin)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY

DG 8 OF 1998

BETWEEN:

DENRY ANTONIO
First Applicant

LETICIA ANTONIO
Second Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent

JANET WOOD AND OTHERS
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

O’LOUGHLIN J

DATE OF ORDER:

22 JANUARY 1999

WHERE MADE:

ADELAIDE (heard in Darwin)

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The joint application of Denry Antonio and Leticia Antonio be dismissed.
2.The applicants pay the respondent’s costs which costs are to be taxed in default of agreement.
Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT

REGISTRY
DG 8 OF 1998

BETWEEN:

DENRY ANTONIO
First Applicant

LETICIA ANTONIO
Second Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent

JANET WOOD AND OTHERS
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

O’LOUGHLIN J

DATE OF ORDER:

22 JANUARY 1999

WHERE MADE:

ADELAIDE (heard in Darwin)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The applicants in these proceedings, who are husband and wife, are citizens of the Republic of the Philippines. They arrived in Australia on 22 November 1995 and lodged separate applications for protection visas with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs some ten months later on 30 September 1996.
On 1 April 1997, a delegate of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Antonio v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1999] FCA 21
Decision Date: 22 JANUARY 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Denry Antonio and Leticia Antonio versus the Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs involved an appeal against a decision to cancel their visas. The applicants sought to challenge the Minister's decision on several grounds, including the Minister's alleged failure to consider relevant information, procedural unfairness, and the harshness of the decision.

The legal issues before the court centred on the scope of judicial review in relation to the cancellation of visas under the Migration Act. The applicants argued that the Minister had failed to consider all relevant information, had acted without procedural fairness, and that the decision was so unreasonable as to be unjust. The court was required to determine whether the Minister's decision was legally sound and whether it met the threshold for judicial review.

In considering the appeal, the court examined the evidence and submissions presented by both parties. It found that the Minister had appropriately considered all relevant information and that there was no procedural unfairness in the decision-making process. The court also held that the decision, while harsh, did not reach the level of unreasonableness that would warrant judicial intervention. Consequently, the court dismissed the application and ordered the applicants to pay the respondent’s costs, which were to be taxed in the absence of agreement.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The joint application of Denry Antonio and Leticia Antonio be dismissed.

2. The applicants pay the respondent’s costs which costs are to be taxed in default of agreement.

Note:

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY	DG 8 OF 1998

JUDGE:	O’LOUGHLIN J
DATE OF ORDER:	22 JANUARY 1999
WHERE MADE:	ADELAIDE (heard in Darwin)