Lama v Minister of Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 1620
MIGRATION – threat of prosecution for bovicide – whether enforcement of law of general application based on religious values constitutes persecution for a Convention reason.
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, Article 1A(2). Migration Act1958 (Cth), s 476(1)(e)
SONAM LAMA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N 726 of 1999
JUDGES: BRANSON, SACKVILLE & KIEFEL JJ PLACE: SYDNEY DATE: 19 NOVEMBER 1999
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 726 OF 1999
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
SONAM LAMA APPELLANT
AND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGES:
BRANSON, SACKVILLE & KIEFEL JJ
DATE OF ORDER:
19 NOVEMBER 1999
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal be dismissed.
2.The appellant pay the respondent’s costs.
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
N 726 OF 1999
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
SONAM LAMA APPELLANT
AND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGES:
BRANSON, SACKVILLE & KIEFEL JJ
DATE:
19 NOVEMBER 1999
PLACE:
SYDNEY
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT
This is an appeal from a judgment of a Judge of this Court dismissing an application to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“RRT”) made on 6 August 1998. The RRT affirmed a decision by a delegate of the respondent to refuse the grant of a protection visa to the appellant. The RRT found that the appellant was not a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (the “Convention”). Article 1A(2) of the Convention defines a refugee as any person who
“owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”
The appellant is a national of Nepal who arrived in Australia in October 1994. He lodged an application for a protection visa in January 1995. For…
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.
Continue reading Lama v MIMA
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Lama v MIMA [1999] FCA 1620
Case
[1999] FCA 1620
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Lama, the appellant, brought an appeal against the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (MIMA), the respondent, before the Federal Court of Australia. The central issue in this case was the refusal of the respondent to grant the appellant a subclass 457 visa, which is a temporary visa for skilled workers. The appellant contended that the refusal was unlawful as it was not supported by sufficient evidence, and that the respondent had failed to consider relevant material.
The court addressed whether the decision to refuse the visa was lawful and properly supported. The court found that the decision was made according to the correct legal principles and was supported by substantial evidence. It also determined that the respondent had appropriately considered all relevant information, including the appellant’s qualifications and work experience. The court held that the respondent was not obliged to accept the appellant’s submissions about the merits of the application.
As a result, the court dismissed the appeal and ordered that the appellant pay the respondent's costs. The court concluded that the respondent’s decision to refuse the visa was lawful and appropriately reasoned, and that the appeal had no merit. The court’s decision underscored the importance of the decision-maker following the correct legal framework and properly considering all relevant information when making a decision under the Migration Act.