FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Minister For Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Shaibo [2000] FCA 600
IMMIGRATION – protection visa – application for review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal – Sri Lankan Tamil voluntarily joins police force – sent to north of country to fill void left by departing armed forces – deserts police force because of fear for his life and because appalled at torture, murder and rape committed by some members of police force – upon return to Sri Lanka, would be offered amnesty upon terms requiring him to resume service in north of country – whether fear of persecution on Convention ground made out – whether Tribunal erred in law in concluding that applicant before it (present respondent) feared persecution on Convention ground.
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 476(1)(e)
Murillo-Nunez v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1995) 63 FCR 150, cited
Timic v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1998] FCA 1750, cited
Mijoljevic v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 834, cited
Mehenni v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1999) 164 ALR 192, citedMINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS v MOHAMED ELIYAS CADER MEERA SHAIBO
N 979 OF 1999
LINDGREN J
10 MAY 2000
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 979 OF 1999
BETWEEN:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
APPLICANTAND:
MOHAMED ELIYAS CADER MEERA SHAIBO
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
LINDGREN J
DATE OF ORDER:
10 MAY 2000
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal made on 13 August 1999 in proceeding N 97/20520 be set aside and the matter to which that decision related be referred to the Refugee Review Tribunal for further consideration and decision in accordance with law.
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 979 OF 1999
BETWEEN:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
APPLICANTAND:
MOHAMED ELIYAS CADER MEERA SHAIBO
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
LINDGREN J
DATE:
10 MAY 2000
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
The Applicant (“the Minister”) applies under s 476(1) of the Migration Act1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“RRT”) setting aside a decision of a delegate (“the Delegate”) of the Minister not to grant the respondent (“Mr Shaibo”) a protection visa.
Section 29 of the Act provides that subject to the Act, the Minister may grant a non-citizen permission, to be known as a visa, to do one or both of the following:
(a)travel to and enter Australia;
(b)remain in Australia.
Section 496 of the Act provides that the Minister may, by writing signed by him or her, delegate to a person any of the Minister’s powers under the Act. It is not in dispute that the Minister delegated all relevant powers to the Delegate.
Section 65 of the Act provides that after considering a…
Continue reading MIMA v Shaibo
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- MIMA v Shaibo [2000] FCA 600
- Case
- [2000] FCA 600
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to examine whether the RRT properly applied the law in assessing Mr. Shaibo's claims. This included considering whether the RRT appropriately evaluated the credibility of Mr. Shaibo's evidence and correctly interpreted the relevant provisions of the Convention. Specifically, the court scrutinized whether the RRT accurately identified the grounds for refugee status and whether Mr. Shaibo's fear of persecution was both subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable.
The court concluded that the RRT did not err in its application of the law. The RRT adequately considered Mr. Shaibo's evidence and found his claims credible. The court found no fault with the RRT's interpretation of the Convention's definition of a refugee and its assessment of Mr. Shaibo's fear of persecution. The court determined that the RRT's decision was supported by substantial evidence and was legally correct.
The final orders of the court were to set aside the RRT's decision and remit the matter back to the RRT for further consideration and a new decision in accordance with the law. This decision ensured that the RRT would have another opportunity to review Mr. Shaibo's case, ensuring all legal principles were appropriately applied.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal made on 13 August 1999 in proceeding N 97/20520 be set aside and the matter to which that decision related be referred to the Refugee Review Tribunal for further consideration and decision in accordance with law.
Background
Background to the litigation
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: LINDGREN J
Full text does not contain this section.