Alphonsus v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 289

Alphonsus v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 289

The Tribunal committed reviewable error because, despite material capable of supporting a finding that police extortion of the applicant formed part of harassment directed at Tamils and thus could be for a Convention reason, it stated that nothing suggested a Convention related reason and did not explain why it made the contrary finding or refer to relevant material as required by s 430(1). The Tribunal also failed to apply the required reasonableness test for internal relocation by not considering all relevant personal circumstances of the applicant, including her age, impaired hearing, absence of relatives in Jaffna and the condition and long non-occupation of her house. Those errors...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 March 1999
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of a Protection Visa / Final Judgment on Application Under S 481(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (cth)
Outcome
Application allowed; decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal set aside and matter remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal; respondent to pay the applicant's costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'convention Reason' 'extortion as Persecution' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'no Evidence Ground' 'internal Relocation' 'reasonableness of Relocation']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'refugee Law'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'convention Reason' 'extortion as Persecution' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'no Evidence Ground' 'internal Relocation' 'reasonableness of Relocation']

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

Judicial Review of Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of a Protection Visa / Final Judgment on Application Under S 481(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (cth)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal made findings based on no evidence or failed to give reasons or refer to evidence for findings that the applicant was of no interest to Sri Lankan authorities and that extortion was not for a Convention reason.' "Whether the Tribunal failed to address the applicant's case that her relationship to her son, a bodyguard to the LTTE leader, was unlikely to have been discovered until after she left Sri Lanka." 'Whether the Tribunal complied with s 430(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) in finding that extortion practised on the applicant was not for a Convention related reason.' 'Whether the Tribunal applied the correct reasonableness test to the possibility that the applicant could relocate to Jaffna or elsewhere in Sri Lanka.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal committed reviewable error because, despite material capable of supporting a finding that police extortion of the applicant formed part of harassment directed at Tamils and thus could be for a Convention reason, it stated that nothing suggested a Convention related reason and did not explain why it made the contrary finding or refer to relevant material as required by s 430(1). The Tribunal also failed to apply the required reasonableness test for internal relocation by not considering all relevant personal circumstances of the applicant, including her age, impaired hearing, absence of relatives in Jaffna and the condition and long non-occupation of her house. Those errors...

Court Disposition

Application allowed; decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal set aside and matter remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal; respondent to pay the applicant's costs.

Orders

  • ['The decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal dated 15 September 1998 be set aside.' 'The matter be remitted to the Refugee Review Tribunal, differently constituted, for determination according to law.' "The respondent pay the applicant's costs."]