NAZW v Minister for Immigration &

Link copied
Case Copied 8 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NAZW v Minister for Immigration &
Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 96


MIGRATION – appellant failed to attend RRT hearing – signed acceptance of hearing invitation - suggestion of default by migration agent – whether effective invitation sent - whether RRT authorised to proceed to decide review

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – ss422B, s424A, 425, 426A,

B41 of 2003, in the matter of an application for a Writ of Mandamus, Prohibition and Certiorari against Refugee Review Tribunal [2004] FCA 30 referred to
Moradian v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1590 referred to
NADK of 2002 v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 184 referred to
NAJT v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCAFC 134 discussed
SZBCS v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1457 referred to
SZBJWv Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1356 cited
SZBNK v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 998 cited
VNAA v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2004) 136 FCR 407 referred to
WAJRv Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 106 referred to

NAZW v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 1868 of 2005

JACOBSON J
SYDNEY
10 FEBRUARY 2006


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 1868 of 2005

BETWEEN:

NAZW
APPELLANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

JACOBSON J

DATE OF ORDER:

10 FEBRUARY 2006

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the proceedings.

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 1858 of 2005

BETWEEN:

NAZW
APPELLANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

JACOBSON J

DATE:

10 FEBRUARY 2006

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

  1. This is an appeal from a decision of Federal Magistrate Driver given on 13 September 2005 dismissing an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the RRT”) handed down on 23 December 2003. 

  2. The RRT affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant the appellant a protection visa.  The appellant is a citizen of the Peoples Republic of China.  He claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution in China on the ground that he was a practitioner of Falun Gung.

  3. The appellant’s application for review of the decision of the delegate was filed on 8 May 2003.  It gave as the address to which correspondence was to be sent as “Jack Meng Immigration Pty Limited” and it gave the appellant’s home address as his residential address.  In answer to a question “Please tell us why you consider yourself to be…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read NAZW v Minister for Immigration & 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
[2006] FCA 96
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves NAZW, an individual who had sought protection as a refugee, and the Minister for Immigration, who had determined that NAZW was not a refugee. The matter was brought before the court, which was tasked with reviewing the decision made by the Minister. The primary issue for the court was whether the Minister had acted lawfully and rationally in making the determination that NAZW did not qualify as a refugee. The court also needed to assess whether the decision was supported by appropriate evidence and whether there were any errors of law.

The court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties and found that the Minister’s decision was based on a comprehensive review of the facts and was not irrational or unlawful. The court held that the Minister had correctly applied the relevant legislative provisions and that there were no errors of law in the decision-making process. The court further found that the decision was supported by sufficient evidence and that NAZW had not demonstrated that the Minister’s decision was unreasonable.

Given that the court found no merit in the appeal, it dismissed the appeal and ordered that the appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the proceedings. This outcome signifies that the Minister’s determination that NAZW was not a refugee stands, and the court upheld the decision as lawful and rational.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the proceedings.

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

JACOBSON J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: JACOBSON J

Full text does not contain this section.