Applicant A27 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 259

Applicant A27 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 259

The application is dismissed because the second Refugee Review Tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction—it limited its review to Article 1A as required—and it provided procedural fairness to the applicant by warning him of concerns over evidence, allowing him opportunity to respond.

Parties
Applicant: Applicant A27 of 2002; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; Second Respondent: Margaret Holmes, Member Refugee Review Tribunal; Third Respondent: Principal Member of the Refugee Review Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Jurisdiction of Tribunals, Protection Visas, Effect of Article 1 F Refugees Convention
Migration Law Administrative Law Procedural Fairness Jurisdiction of Tribunals Protection Visas Effect of Article 1 F Refugees Convention

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Applicant A27 of 2002

Applicant

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

First Respondent

Margaret Holmes, Member Refugee Review Tribunal

Second Respondent

Principal Member of the Refugee Review Tribunal

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Refugee Review Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by considering Article 1F of the Refugees Convention on review
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal failed to accord the applicant procedural fairness by not warning that a finding would be made about documents being concocted

Ratio Decidendi

The application is dismissed because the second Refugee Review Tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction—it limited its review to Article 1A as required—and it provided procedural fairness to the applicant by warning him of concerns over evidence, allowing him opportunity to respond.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application be dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the first respondent's costs.