Lie v RRT and Ors S89/1999

This matter concerned an application by Mr. Lie for leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Full Federal Court. The dispute arose from a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) to affirm the Minister's decision to refuse Mr. Lie's application for a protection visa. Mr. Lie, a citizen of Vietnam, claimed he had a well-founded fear of persecution should he be returned to his country of origin. The Full Federal Court had previously dismissed Mr. Lie's appeal from the Federal Court's decision, which had upheld the RRT's findings.

The central legal issue before Gaudron J was whether Mr. Lie had established an arguable case of error of law in the Full Federal Court's decision, which would warrant granting leave to appeal to the High Court. Specifically, the application for leave to appeal raised questions concerning the interpretation and application of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth), particularly in relation to the assessment of claims for protection visas and the scope of judicial review of decisions made by the Refugee Review Tribunal.

Gaudron J considered the grounds of appeal advanced by Mr. Lie, which primarily focused on alleged errors in the Full Federal Court's understanding of the evidentiary burden and the standard of proof required to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. Her Honour reviewed the relevant case law and the facts as presented in the application. After careful consideration, Gaudron J concluded that Mr. Lie had not demonstrated an arguable case of error of law that would justify the High Court granting leave to appeal. The application for leave to appeal was therefore dismissed.