Chen v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs

Link copied
Case Copied 20 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Chen v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 34

IMMIGRATION LAW - Chinese national - deprivation of household registration due to political beliefs - consequences of deprivation of household registration - findings of fact as to consequences - application for review under s 476(1)(g) - whether there was evidence or other material to justify the making of the decision.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 476(4)(a), 474(4)(b), 476(1)(g)
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) s 5(1)(h) and s 5(3)

Arnotts Ltd v Trade Practices Commission (1990) 24 FCR 313 applied

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 considered
Szelagowicz v Stocker (1994) 35 ALD 16 considered
Television Capricornia Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1986) 13 FCR 511 followed
Western Television Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1986) 12 FCR 414 followed
Curragh Queensland Mining Ltd v Daniel (1992) 34 FCR 212 applied
Xiang Sheng Li v Refugee Review Tribunal (1996) 45 ALD 193 applied
Feliciano v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 43 ALD 1 applied
Malik v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1997) 47 ALD 27 applied
Adams v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1998) 70 FCR 591 applied

DEQING CHEN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

NG 530 OF 1998

MOORE, MANSFIELD & EMMETT JJ
SYDNEY
3 FEBRUARY 1999

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NG 530 OF 1998
BETWEEN:

DEQING CHEN
Applicant
AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent
JUDGES: MOORE, MANSFIELD & EMMETT JJ
DATE OF ORDER: 3 FEBRUARY 1999
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Appeal dismissed.

2.        Appellant pay to respondent costs of the appeal to be taxed.

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 NG 530 OF 1998
BETWEEN:

DEQING CHEN
Applicant
AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent
JUDGES: MOORE, MANSFIELD & EMMETT JJ
DATE: 3 FEBRUARY 1999
PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

  1. This is an appeal from a decision of Branson J given on 31 March 1998.  Her Honour dismissed an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) given on 6 June 1997 which affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (“the Minister”) refusing to grant to the appellant a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”).

  1. It was necessary for the appellant to satisfy the Minister that he is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28 July 1951 as amended by the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees done at New York on 31 January 1967 (“the Convention”).  In particular, it was necessary for him to satisfy the Minister under Article 1A(2) of the Convention that he was a person who:

    “… owing to well-founded fear…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Chen 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 34
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Chen, the appellant, sought to appeal a decision of the Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs, the respondent, which had resulted in the appellant's visa application being refused. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the Minister's decision was legally sound. The appellant argued that the Minister had failed to consider certain information provided and had not adequately assessed the merits of the application. The respondent maintained that the decision was properly made in accordance with the applicable legislative framework.

The court was required to decide whether the Minister's decision was legally valid, specifically whether the Minister had exercised their discretion appropriately and whether they had considered all relevant information. The court also needed to determine if there were any errors in the application of the relevant legislative provisions or if the decision was unreasonable in the sense of being unjust or arbitrary. The appellant further contended that the Minister had breached the principle of procedural fairness by failing to give adequate reasons for the decision.

In delivering its judgment, the court found that the Minister had exercised their discretion correctly and had considered all relevant information. The court held that the decision was not legally flawed and was not unreasonable. The court further found that the Minister had provided adequate reasons for the decision, thereby satisfying the requirements of procedural fairness. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed.

2. Appellant pay to respondent costs of the appeal to be taxed.

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.