Re: RAMAZAN ALI BABAEI SOMAGHI And: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS No. V G351 of 1990 FED No. 501 Citizenship Immigration and Emigration - Administrative Law 102 ALR 339 (1991) 31 FCR 100
COURT
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION Keely(1), Jenkinson(2) and Gummow(3) JJ.
CATCHWORDS
Citizenship Immigration and Emigration - Immigration - Entry Permits and change of status - Determination as to refugee status - Refugee sur place - requirement of bona fides.
Administrative Law - Rules of natural justice and breach thereof - Right of party affected to be heard - Nature of hearing - Adverse conclusions - Circumstances in which party affected to be apprised so that he may respond.
Counsel and solicitors : Mr B.A. Keon-Cohen for the appellant instructed by Mr E.H. Rodan
Counsel and solicitors : Mr K. Bell instructed for the respondent by the Australian Government Solicitor
ORDER
1. The appeal against the dismissal of the appellant's application for an order of review in respect of the decision of the respondent's delegate made on 20 April 1990 that the applicant does not have the status of refugee within the meaning of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees that was done at Geneva on 28 July 1951 or of the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees that was done at New York on 31 January 1967 be allowed.
2. The said decision be set aside.
3. The appellant's application for a determination by the respondent that he has the said status be heard and determined according to law.
4. The order with respect to costs made by the Honourable Mr Justice Lockhart on 22 November 1990 be set aside.
5. The respondent pay the appellant one half of the appellant's costs of the proceeding determined by the said order made on 22 November 1990 and one half of the appellant's costs of the appeal.
6. Save as aforesaid the appeal be dismissed.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with…
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.
Continue reading Somaghi v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Eth...
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Ramazan Ali Babaei Somaghi v. Minister for Immigration, Local Government & Ethnic Affairs [1991] FCA 501 (102 ALR 339; (1991) 31 FCR 100)
Case
[1991] FCA 501
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Somaghi v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, the appellant, Somaghi, contested the decision of the respondent, the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, which denied his application for refugee status under the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. The dispute was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. Somaghi sought a review of the decision, arguing that the Minister's delegate had erred in finding that he did not meet the requirements for refugee status.
The legal issues before the court centred on whether the Minister's delegate had correctly applied the law in determining that Somaghi did not qualify for refugee status. Specifically, the court needed to examine whether the delegate had properly assessed the appellant's bona fides and whether there was sufficient evidence to support the decision that Somaghi was not a refugee. The court also had to consider the applicable principles under the Convention and Protocol regarding the status of refugees.
In delivering the judgment, the court found that the Minister's delegate had not adequately considered the evidence provided by Somaghi and had overlooked certain factors that were relevant to his claim for refugee status. The court concluded that the decision was flawed as it did not appropriately address the appellant's bona fides and the circumstances surrounding his application. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the decision was set aside. The court mandated that the Minister should hear and determine Somaghi's application for refugee status according to law. Additionally, the costs previously awarded were reconsidered, with the respondent ordered to pay half of the appellant's costs for the proceeding and the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal against the dismissal of the appellant's application for an order of review in respect of the decision of the respondent's delegate made on 20 April 1990 that the applicant does not have the status of refugee within the meaning of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees that was done at Geneva on 28 July 1951 or of the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees that was done at New York on 31 January 1967 be allowed.
2. The said decision be set aside.
3. The appellant's application for a determination by the respondent that he has the said status be heard and determined according to law.
4. The order with respect to costs made by the Honourable Mr Justice Lockhart on 22 November 1990 be set aside.
5. The respondent pay the appellant one half of the appellant's costs of the proceeding determined by the said order made on 22 November 1990 and one half of the appellant's costs of the appeal.
6. Save as aforesaid the appeal be dismissed.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.