MIGRATION - application for review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal not to grant protection visa - whether applicant a refugee - well‑founded fear of persecution - "real chance" test - whether early finding as to credit of applicant precluded proper application of the test - whether Tribunal had requisite level of satisfaction as to credit - whether error of law.
Migration Act 1958: s 36, s 427(1)(a), s 476(1), s 476(1)(g),
ZHANG SU RONG V REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ANOR No VG 270 of 1996
GOLDBERG J MELBOURNE 16 MAY 1997
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY )
GENERAL DIVISION ) No 270 of 1996
B E T W E E N:
ZHANG SU RONG Applicant
and
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL First Respondent and
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Second Respondent
CORAM:GOLDBERG J
PLACE:MELBOURNE
DATE:16 MAY 1997
MINUTES OF ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The application is dismissed
The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application including reserved costs.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court rules
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY )
GENERAL DIVISION ) No 270 of 1996
B E T W E E N:
ZHANG SU RONG Applicant
and
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL First Respondent and
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Second Respondent
CORAM:GOLDBERG J
PLACE:MELBOURNE
DATE:16 MAY 1997
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction and background The applicant applies to the Court pursuant to Pt 8 of the Migration Act 1958 ("the Act") for an order of review in respect of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") on 3 April 1996 whereby the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate of the Minister that the applicant was not a refugee and was not entitled to a protection visa.
The applicant, who was born in the People's Republic of China on 3 October 1956, arrived in Australia on 23 December 1989 on a student visa. On 15 November 1993 the applicant lodged an application for refugee status in Australia with the Department of Immigration Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. In that application in response…
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 Zhang v RRT & Anor
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Zhang v RRT & Anor [1997] FCA 423
Case
[1997] FCA 423
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In Zhang v Refugee Review Tribunal & Anor, the applicant sought judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") to affirm a decision of the delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs that the applicant was not a refugee and not entitled to a protection visa. The Tribunal had held that the applicant had not suffered persecution in the People's Republic of China, had not been subjected to harassment on account of her political activities, and had not been subjected to harassment in obtaining her exit documentation. The applicant argued that the Tribunal had erred in its application of the "real chance" test and in its assessment of the applicant's credibility. The Court found that the Tribunal had not erred in its application of the "real chance" test and that the Tribunal had not failed to observe procedures required by the Act. The Court dismissed the application and ordered the applicant to pay the costs of the application.