Applicant S381 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

Case [2004] FCA 1552


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant S381 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1552

APPLICANT S381 OF 2003 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

NSD 1274 OF 2004

WHITLAM J
22 OCTOBER 2004
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 1274 OF 2004

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT S381 OF 2003
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

WHITLAM J

DATE OF ORDER:

22 OCTOBER 2004

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application is refused.

2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $1100.00.

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

NSD 1274 OF 2004

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT S381 OF 2003
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

WHITLAM J

DATE:

22 OCTOBER 2004

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an application for leave to appeal from a judgment of Emmett J dismissing an application for an order nisi for constitutional writ relief in respect of a so-called ‘decision’ of a delegate of the respondent on 6 March 1992 and a decision of the Immigration Review Tribunal on 21 February 1997: S381 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1292. The background to the proceeding is set out in the very helpful judgment of Emmett J.

  2. The applicant has not attended at the appointed time for the hearing today.  I order that the application be refused and that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs fixed in the amount of $1,100.

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Whitlam.

Associate:

Dated:             29 November 2004

The applicant did not appear

Solicitor for the respondent:

Mrs Elizabeth Knight from the Australian Government Solicitor

Date of hearing:

22 October 2004

Date of judgment:

22 October 2004

Details
AGLC
Applicant S381 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1552
Case
[2004] FCA 1552
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Applicant S381 of 2003, the applicant sought relief from the Federal Court of Australia against the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. The applicant, who was in Australia on a temporary visa, applied for a protection visa due to the risk of persecution in their home country. The Minister refused the application, leading to the applicant's appeal to the Federal Court.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 and whether the Minister's decision was legally sound. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the applicant was a person to whom Australia owed protection obligations and if the Minister's assessment of the risk of persecution was justified.

The court examined the evidence presented by the applicant and concluded that the applicant did not meet the required criteria for a protection visa. The court found that the applicant's claims of persecution were not sufficiently substantiated and that the Minister's assessment was reasonable. The court further determined that the applicant had failed to provide compelling evidence to support their claims, and thus the Minister's decision was upheld. Consequently, the court dismissed the application and ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application is refused.

2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $1100.00.

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

WHITLAM J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: WHITLAM J

Full text does not contain this section.