Applicant S265/2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1488

Applicant S265/2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1488

The applicant did not show an arguable case for constitutional writ relief. The Tribunal had made a clear finding, previously upheld, that Pakistan was able and willing to provide effective governmental protection, had not failed to consider the facts cumulatively, and the procedural fairness complaint was inconsistent with the Tribunal record showing that adverse concerns and material were provided and responded to.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Migration Application for Order Nisi Seeking Constitutional Writ Relief / Considered on the Papers Whether There Was an Arguable Case for the Making of an Order Nisi
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'procedural Fairness' 'jurisdictional Error' 'constitutional Writ Relief' 'real Chance Test' 'effective State Protection']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'procedural Fairness' 'jurisdictional Error' 'constitutional Writ Relief' 'real Chance Test' 'effective State Protection']

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

Migration Application for Order Nisi Seeking Constitutional Writ Relief / Considered on the Papers Whether There Was an Arguable Case for the Making of an Order Nisi

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Refugee Review Tribunal failed to accord the applicant procedural fairness by not providing particulars of adverse information relied upon and not allowing a response.' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in applying the applicable law, including the real chance test, or failed to apply it to the facts as found.' 'Whether the material disclosed an arguable case for the grant of constitutional writ relief.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not show an arguable case for constitutional writ relief. The Tribunal had made a clear finding, previously upheld, that Pakistan was able and willing to provide effective governmental protection, had not failed to consider the facts cumulatively, and the procedural fairness complaint was inconsistent with the Tribunal record showing that adverse concerns and material were provided and responded to.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

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