STNB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

Case [2004] FCA 515

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

STNB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs
[2004] FCA 515

STNB v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

No S9 of 2004

FINN J
ADELAIDE
28 APRIL 2004         

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

S 9 OF 2004

BETWEEN:

STNB
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

FINN J

DATE OF ORDER:

28 APRIL 2004

WHERE MADE:

ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application be dismissed with costs. 

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 9 OF 2004

BETWEEN:

STNB
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

FINN J

DATE:

28 APRIL 2004

PLACE:

ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. The object of this application is to keep alive the right of the applicant ultimately to seek special leave to the High Court against the anticipated decision of the Full Court of this court.  The matter, as has been accepted by the applicant, is for present purposes governed by the Full Court decision in SCAL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 301. Special leave had been sought in SCAL.

  2. The applicant has candidly conceded that SCAL is determinative of the issues in this matter, and I am bound to follow that decision.  That concession has properly been made.  The present matter, like SCAL, involves an alleged fear of persecution arising from an Albanian blood feud, in this case, the blood feud resulting from the killing by the applicant's cousin of a member of the aggrieved family while he has been in Australia. 

  3. For present purposes, I am obliged to conclude that if the applicant did not belong to his family or if his cousin had not killed a member of the aggrieved family he would have no fear of persecution. The particular social group to which he belongs is his family, and s 91S of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), in the circumstances, precludes reliance upon fear of persecution by reason of his membership of that group for the purposes of an application for a protection visa.

  4. Accordingly, the application will be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Finn.

Associate:

Dated:            28 April 2004

Counsel for the Applicant: J McGrath
Solicitor for the Applicant: McDonald Steed Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent: K Treadrea
Solicitor for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing: 28 April 2004
Date of Judgment: 28 April 2004
Details
AGLC
STNB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 515
Case
[2004] FCA 515
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Federal Court involved STNB, an applicant for a protection visa, and the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, the respondent. The applicant sought judicial review of a decision to refuse to grant a protection visa, contending that the decision-maker failed to properly consider relevant evidence and misapplied the applicable legal standards. The Federal Court was called upon to determine whether the administrative decision was legally sound and whether the decision-maker exercised their discretion appropriately.

The central legal issues in the case concerned whether the decision-maker appropriately exercised their discretion when assessing the applicant's eligibility for a protection visa and whether the decision was based on relevant considerations and was legally sound. Specifically, the court needed to examine whether the decision-maker properly considered the applicant's evidence, correctly applied the applicable legal standards, and exercised their discretion appropriately.

The court held that the decision-maker had exercised their discretion lawfully and appropriately, considering all relevant evidence and correctly applying the applicable legal standards. The court found that the decision-maker's assessment of the applicant's credibility and the weight to be given to the evidence was reasonable and not open to challenge. The court further held that the decision was based on relevant considerations and was legally sound. Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant's appeal and ordered that the application be dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application be dismissed with costs.

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

FINN J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: FINN J

Full text does not contain this section.