W148/00A v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Link copied
Case Copied 40 min read

"W148/00A" v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 679
Migration

"W148/00A" v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 679

MIGRATION - application for protection visa - Refugee Review Tribunal decision based on finding on credibility - whether appellant identified and made out a ground for review.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 36, 430, 476, 476(1)(b), (c), (e), (g), 476(4)

Buck v Bavone (1976) 135 CLR 110 considered

Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v WuShan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 considered

Reg v Ministry of Defence; Ex parte Smith [1996] QB 517 considered

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu (1999) 197 CLR 611 referred to

Thevendram v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1910 referred to

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf [2001] HCA 30 referred to

Abebe v Commonwealth (1997) 197 CLR 510 considered

Chan Yee Kin v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1989) 169 CLR 379 referred to

Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559 referred to

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Rajalingam [1999] FCA 719 referred to

Karanakaran v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2000] 3 All ER 451 at 469 considered

Reg v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Ex parte Bugdaycay [1987] AC 514 considered

Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472 considered

Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1988) 171 CLR 167 considered

"W148/00A" v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

W 148 OF 2000

LEE, TAMBERLIN & R D NICHOLSON JJ

PERTH (HEARD VIA VIDEO-LINK)

22 JUNE 2001

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY W 148 OF 2000
BETWEEN:"W148/00A"

APPELLANT

AND:MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

LEE, TAMBERLIN & R D NICHOLSON JJ
DATE OF ORDER: 22 JUNE 2001
WHERE MADE: PERTH (HEARD VIA VIDEO-LINK)

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal 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
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY W 148 OF 2000
BETWEEN: "W148/00A"

APPELLANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGES: LEE, TAMBERLIN & R D NICHOLSON JJ
DATE: 22 JUNE 2001
PLACE: PERTH (HEARD VIA VIDEO-LINK)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

LEE J:

1       For cause made apparent in the following reasons, an order should be made that the identity of the appellant not be disclosed and that he be referred to in the title of the proceedings as W148/00A.

2       The joint reasons of Tamberlin and R D Nicholson JJ set out the relevant facts and it is unnecessary to repeat them other than to expand certain parts thereof.

3       In this appeal, as in the application for review heard by Carr J, the appellant, who does not speak English, was unrepresented. The appellant appeared by video-link from the Port Hedland Detention Centre and his submissions were conveyed to the Court by an interpreter…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read W148/00A v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affair... 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
[2001] FCA 679
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of W148/00A v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs involved a non-citizen challenging the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs’ decision to cancel their visa. The Federal Court was tasked with assessing the legal validity of the decision-making process and the outcome. The non-citizen argued that procedural fairness was not observed in the decision-making process, and that the Minister's decision was unreasonable.

The court was required to determine whether the Minister's decision to cancel the visa was legally sound and whether the procedural fairness was appropriately observed. Specifically, the court needed to examine whether the Minister had the authority to cancel the visa under the relevant legislation and if the decision was supported by the evidence. The court also needed to consider whether the non-citizen was given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations against them.

The court found that the Minister had the authority to cancel the visa and that the decision was supported by the evidence. The court also determined that the non-citizen was given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations against them, and that procedural fairness was observed. The court concluded that the Minister's decision was legally sound and dismissed the appeal. The court ordered that the appeal be dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal 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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.