Hai v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 412

Hai v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 412

The application failed because there was evidence before the Tribunal capable of supporting the challenged findings, including the applicant's own evidence about his employment duties and DFAT material about political violence in Bangladesh; the applicant's complaints were directed to the weight given to the evidence, which was a matter for the Tribunal and not a permissible basis for review under s 476(1)(g) as qualified by s 476(4).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Application for Review of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Under the Migration Act 1958 (cth) / Federal Court Hearing of Amended Application for Order of Review
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'no Evidence Ground of Review' 'well Founded Fear of Persecution' 'political Opinion']
['migration' 'administrative Law' 'refugee Law'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'no Evidence Ground of Review' 'well Founded Fear of Persecution' 'political Opinion']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Review of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Under the Migration Act 1958 (cth) / Federal Court Hearing of Amended Application for Order of Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether there was no evidence or other material to justify the Tribunal's decision within s 476(1)(g) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)." "Whether the Tribunal's findings that the applicant was a minor employee of Kazi Zafar and that there was no official tolerance of politically motivated violence in Bangladesh were unsupported by evidence."]

Ratio Decidendi

The application failed because there was evidence before the Tribunal capable of supporting the challenged findings, including the applicant's own evidence about his employment duties and DFAT material about political violence in Bangladesh; the applicant's complaints were directed to the weight given to the evidence, which was a matter for the Tribunal and not a permissible basis for review under s 476(1)(g) as qualified by s 476(4).

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the respondent's costs."]