Khan v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1561

Khan v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1561

The appellant failed to identify any viable ground of appeal according to law. His written and oral submissions did not disclose error of law by the primary judge or the Refugee Review Tribunal, and the additional material he sought to tender was inadmissible or not properly relevant on appeal. The appeal therefore had to be dismissed with costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal From a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia Concerning Dismissal of an Application for Review of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of a Protection Visa / Full Court Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'judicial Review' 'error of Law' 'credibility Findings' 'well Founded Fear of Persecution' 'admission of Evidence on Appeal']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'judicial Review' 'error of Law' 'credibility Findings' 'well Founded Fear of Persecution' 'admission of Evidence on Appeal']

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

Appeal From a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia Concerning Dismissal of an Application for Review of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of a Protection Visa / Full Court Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellant identified any error of law by the Refugee Review Tribunal or the primary judge.' "Whether the appellant's tendered material and oral submissions provided a legally viable basis for appellate review." "Whether the Refugee Review Tribunal's decision affirming refusal of a protection visa should stand."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to identify any viable ground of appeal according to law. His written and oral submissions did not disclose error of law by the primary judge or the Refugee Review Tribunal, and the additional material he sought to tender was inadmissible or not properly relevant on appeal. The appeal therefore had to be dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the respondent's costs."]