Ayub, Abdul v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs [1996] FCA 1093

Ayub, Abdul v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs [1996] FCA 1093

The application failed because the Immigration Review Tribunal did not misinterpret or misapply cl 812.723 (6). Its reasons showed that it accepted emotional hardship could be relevant, but found the sadness and hardship established by the evidence were not extreme and any prejudice was not irreparable. That evaluative conclusion was open on the evidence, including the parents' overseas travel, the support available from daughters and other family members, and the absence of sufficient evidence of religious or cultural dependency. No ground under s 476 (1) (e) or (g) was made out.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 December 1996
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review of Immigration Review Tribunal Decision Refusing a Class 812 (december 1989 (permanent)) Entry Permit / Federal Court Reasons for Judgment and Orders
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['permanent Entry Permit on Compassionate Grounds' 'extreme Hardship or Irreparable Prejudice' 'emotional Hardship' 'no Evidence Ground of Review' 'error of Law']
['immigration' 'administrative Law' 'judicial Review'] ['permanent Entry Permit on Compassionate Grounds' 'extreme Hardship or Irreparable Prejudice' 'emotional Hardship' 'no Evidence Ground of Review' 'error of Law']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Judicial Review of Immigration Review Tribunal Decision Refusing a Class 812 (december 1989 (permanent)) Entry Permit / Federal Court Reasons for Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Immigration Review Tribunal erred in law by failing to recognise that emotional suffering could constitute extreme hardship under Migration (1993) Regulations cl 812.723 (6).' "Whether, on the evidence, the only conclusion open to the Immigration Review Tribunal was that refusal of the entry permit would cause the applicant's father extreme hardship or irreparable prejudice." "Whether there was evidence or other material to justify the Immigration Review Tribunal's decision."]

Ratio Decidendi

The application failed because the Immigration Review Tribunal did not misinterpret or misapply cl 812.723 (6). Its reasons showed that it accepted emotional hardship could be relevant, but found the sadness and hardship established by the evidence were not extreme and any prejudice was not irreparable. That evaluative conclusion was open on the evidence, including the parents' overseas travel, the support available from daughters and other family members, and the absence of sufficient evidence of religious or cultural dependency. No ground under s 476 (1) (e) or (g) was made out.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['That the application be dismissed.' "That the applicant pay the respondents' costs."]