Legal Research
Cases
SBBF v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs

SBBF v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs

Link copied

Case Copied 22 November 2002 15 min read

Contents

On this page

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SBBF v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs
[2002] FCAFC 358
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Chan Ye Kin v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (1998) 169 CLR 379
Chen Chi Hi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (2000) 201 CLR 293
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Haji Ibrahim (2000) 175 ALR 585
NAAV v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 228
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Rajalingam (1999) 93 FCR 220 at [146]
R v Murray; Ex parte Proctor (1949) 77 CLR 387
SCAA v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 668 at [38]
NAAP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 805
SBBF v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
S.165 of 2002
TAMBERLIN, MANSFIELD & JACOBSON JJ
22 NOVEMBER 2002
ADELAIDE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

S.165 OF 2002

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SBBF
APPELLANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

TAMBERLIN, MANSFIELD & JACOBSON JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

22 NOVEMBER 2002

WHERE MADE:

ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.        The appeal is dismissed.
2.        The appellant pay to the respondent 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

S.165 OF 2002

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SBBF
APPELLANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

TAMBERLIN, MANSFIELD & JACOBSON JJ

DATE:

22 NOVEMBER 2002

PLACE:

ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT

This is an appeal from a decision of a judge of the Court given on 17 June 2002, dismissing an application under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) to have declared invalid a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) given on 17 December 2001. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent of 12 September 2001 refusing to grant to the appellant a protection visa for which he had applied under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) following his arrival in Australia.
The decision of the Tribunal turned upon whether the appellant satisfied the criterion for the grant of a protection visa specified in s 36(2) of the Act, namely that he is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol, using those terms as defined in the Act (the Convention). In practical terms, that amounted to the Tribunal not being satisfied that the applicant is a refugee as defined in Art 1A(2) of the Convention, because it was not satisfied that it has a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason if he were to return to his country of nationality.
Certain of the appellant’s claims were accepted…

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 SBBF v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous... 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 358
Decision Date: 22 NOVEMBER 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of SBBF versus the Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs, the Federal Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing a decision made by the Minister regarding the appellant's application for a visa. The appellant, SBBF, sought to challenge the Minister's decision to refuse their visa application on the grounds that it did not meet the requirements of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The appellant contended that the Minister's decision was unreasonable and that there were errors in the assessment process.

The court was required to determine whether the Minister's decision was legally sound and whether there were any grounds upon which the decision could be deemed unreasonable. This involved examining the applicable provisions of the Migration Act, the regulations, and any relevant case law that might provide guidance on the interpretation and application of the statutory provisions. The court also needed to consider whether the Minister had acted within their powers and whether the decision-making process was fair and transparent.

The court found that the Minister's decision was well-founded and that there were no errors in the decision-making process. The court held that the Minister had correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions and that the decision was not unreasonable. The appellant's arguments did not succeed in demonstrating that the Minister's decision was flawed or that there were any grounds for overturning it. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The appellant pay to the respondent costs of the appeal.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	S.165 OF 2002

BETWEEN:	SBBF APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGES:	TAMBERLIN, MANSFIELD & JACOBSON JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	22 NOVEMBER 2002
WHERE MADE:	ADELAIDE

JUDGES:	TAMBERLIN, MANSFIELD & JACOBSON JJ
DATE:	22 NOVEMBER 2002
PLACE:	ADELAIDE