Raza v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs - [2002] FCAFC 82

Raza v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 82
Raza v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 350
NOTE: CHANGES TO THE MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION (MNC)
The Federal Court adopted a new medium neutral citation (FCAFC) for Full Court judgments effective from 1 January 2002. Single Judge judgments will not be affected and will retain the FCA medium neutral citation.
The transitional arrangements are as follows:

All Full Court judgments delivered prior to 1 January 2002 will retain the FCA medium neutral citation.

All Full Court judgments delivered between 1 January 2002 to 30 April 2002 have been assigned parallel medium neutral citations in both the FCA and FCAFC series.

All Full Court judgments delivered from 1 May 2002 will contain the FCAFC medium neutral citation only.

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Raza v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 350
MIGRATION - judicial review - refugees - real chance assessment - whether doubt as to nationality should be subject of real chance assessment - whether Tribunal obliged to make finding as to nationality to avoid breach of non-refoulement obligation - whether finding that linguistic report "not evidence" was erroneous
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 476
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Al-Sallal (1999) 94 FCR 549
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Applicant C [2001] FCA 1332
Hussaini v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 104
GHULAM RAZA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
S162 OF 2001
FRENCH, MERKEL AND GYLES JJ
28 MARCH 2002
MELBOURNE (Heard in Adelaide)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

S162 OF 2001

On Appeal from a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia

BETWEEN:

GHULAM RAZA
APPELLANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

FRENCH, MERKEL AND GYLES JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

28 MARCH 2002

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE (Heard in Adelaide)

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.        The appeal be dismissed.
2.        The appellant is to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.
Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

S162 OF 2001

On Appeal from a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia

BETWEEN:

GHULAM RAZA
APPELLANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

FRENCH, MERKEL AND GYLES JJ

DATE:

28 MARCH 2002

PLACE:

MELBOURNE (Heard in Adelaide)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction

The appellant arrived in Australia by boat without lawful authority on 30 December 2000. He lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs on 22 January 2001. A delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs refused his application on 16 March 2001 and on 19 March 2001 he applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") for review of that decision. On 24 May 2001, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the appellant a protection visa. He then applied…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Raza 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: [2002] FCAFC 82
Decision Date: 28 MARCH 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Raza v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs involved the appellant challenging a decision made by the Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs regarding his application for a visa. The dispute was brought before the court, which had to determine whether the Minister's decision was legally sound. The court examined various grounds of appeal, including the Tribunal's treatment of a linguistic analysis report pertinent to the appellant's claim of being an Afghan national.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Tribunal appropriately considered the linguistic analysis report when determining the appellant's nationality claim. The appellant argued that the Tribunal should have given more weight to the report, while the Minister contended that the Tribunal's assessment was correct. The court had to decide if the Tribunal's observation about not considering the report as conclusive evidence was a mischaracterisation or if it accurately reflected the Tribunal's balanced consideration of all evidence.

In its reasoning, the court clarified that the Tribunal's phrasing regarding the linguistic analysis report was indeed unfortunate but did not indicate that the report was entirely disregarded. The court found that the Tribunal had indeed weighed the report along with other evidence and concluded that the appellant was not satisfied as an Afghan national. The court concluded that there was no legal error in the Tribunal's approach and that the characterisation of the Tribunal's observation was accurate within the context of its reasons.

The court dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal. This decision underscored the importance of correctly characterising the weight given to various pieces of evidence in migration law decisions.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The appellant is to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

It should be noted that counsel for the respondent objected to the inclusion of this ground in the notice of appeal on the basis of prejudice. It was contended that had this ground of appeal been introduced before the primary judge, then evidence might have been called relevant to it. The Court is unable to see what evidence would have been relevant to this ground of appeal before the primary judge. In the Court's opinion there is no prejudice to the Minister in allowing this ground of appeal to be included in the notice of appeal. In the event, the ground of appeal is unsuccessful.Whether the Linguistic Analysis was Evidence The third ground of appeal turned on the Tribunal's observation that it did not regard the report of the analysis of the appellant's language "as constituting evidence that the applicant is a national of Afghanistan". As his Honour said, the phrasing of that finding was unhappy. The report was plainly evidence relevant to the appellant's claim to be a national of Afghanistan. His Honour however was correct in characterising the observation as no more than a statement that the Tribunal had weighed the evidence provided by the linguistic analysis report together with other evidence to which it had referred in its reasons in deciding that it was not satisfied that the appellant was a national of Afghanistan. It was not a case of attributing no weight to the linguistic analysis. When the sentence is read in context of the Tribunal's reasons that characterisation was plainly correct. Conclusion For the preceding reasons the appeal should be dismissed with costs.

Decision

Reasons for decision

FRENCH, MERKEL AND GYLES JJ

The third ground of appeal turned on the Tribunal's observation that it did not regard the report of the analysis of the appellant's language "as constituting evidence that the applicant is a national of Afghanistan". As his Honour said, the phrasing of that finding was unhappy. The report was plainly evidence relevant to the appellant's claim to be a national of Afghanistan. His Honour however was correct in characterising the observation as no more than a statement that the Tribunal had weighed the evidence provided by the linguistic analysis report together with other evidence to which it had referred in its reasons in deciding that it was not satisfied that the appellant was a national of Afghanistan. It was not a case of attributing no weight to the linguistic analysis. When the sentence is read in context of the Tribunal's reasons that characterisation was plainly correct. Conclusion For the preceding reasons the appeal should be dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: FRENCH, MERKEL AND GYLES JJ

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	S162 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	GHULAM RAZA APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGES:	FRENCH, MERKEL AND GYLES JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	28 MARCH 2002
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE (Heard in Adelaide)

JUDGES:	FRENCH, MERKEL AND GYLES JJ
DATE:	28 MARCH 2002
PLACE:	MELBOURNE (Heard in Adelaide)