Dan, Adrian v Minster for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1998] FCA 20

Dan, Adrian v Minster for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1998] FCA 20

The applicant established no permissible ground of review. Articles 251 and 253 of the Romanian Penal Code did not show that ship-jumping was an offence applicable to his circumstances and were not relevant considerations. Even if the Articles applied, any punishment would arise under a law of general application and would not amount to persecution for a Convention reason. In any event, failure to take into account a relevant consideration was not a permissible review ground. The complaints about the DFAT cable, security material and The Economist article did not establish denial of substantial justice, and the Tribunal's weighing of evidence was not reviewable under s 476(1).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 January 1998
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of a Protection Visa / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Status' 'judicial Review' 'convention Nexus' 'procedural Fairness' 'substantial Justice' 'romanian Penal Code' 'ship Deserter']
['immigration' 'administrative Law' 'refugee Law'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Status' 'judicial Review' 'convention Nexus' 'procedural Fairness' 'substantial Justice' 'romanian Penal Code' 'ship Deserter']

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 a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of a Protection Visa / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Refugee Review Tribunal failed to take Articles 251 and 253 of the Romanian Penal Code into account.' 'Whether any penalty or consequence for ship-jumping or failure to return to Romania was persecution for a Convention reason.' 'Whether failure to take into account the Romanian Penal Code was a permissible ground of review under s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).' 'Whether the Tribunal failed to act according to substantial justice by not providing the applicant with copies of the DFAT cable, security documents or the article in The Economist.' 'Whether the applicant established any permissible ground for judicial review.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant established no permissible ground of review. Articles 251 and 253 of the Romanian Penal Code did not show that ship-jumping was an offence applicable to his circumstances and were not relevant considerations. Even if the Articles applied, any punishment would arise under a law of general application and would not amount to persecution for a Convention reason. In any event, failure to take into account a relevant consideration was not a permissible review ground. The complaints about the DFAT cable, security material and The Economist article did not establish denial of substantial justice, and the Tribunal's weighing of evidence was not reviewable under s 476(1).

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

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