Asif v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1193

Asif v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1193

The Court held that the Tribunal did not base its adverse finding on a non-existent particular fact. The statement that the applicant did not appear to be aware that there was a river running through Kabul was an impression and was not falsified by the Tribunal's summary of the applicant's evidence. The matter actually taken into account was that the applicant, despite claiming to have lived in Kabul for ten years, did not know the name of the main river running through the city. No doubt was cast on that conclusion, and the asserted no-evidence ground was not made out.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 August 2001
Procedural Posture
Application for an Order of Review of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of a Protection Visa / Ex Tempore Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'no Evidence Ground of Review' 'credibility Findings' 'migration Act 1958 (cth) S 476']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'refugee Law'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'no Evidence Ground of Review' 'credibility Findings' 'migration Act 1958 (cth) S 476']

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

Application for an Order of Review of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of a Protection Visa / Ex Tempore Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether there was no evidence or other material to justify the Tribunal's decision under s 476(1)(g) and s 476(4)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 because the Tribunal allegedly based its decision on a particular fact that did not exist." "Whether the Tribunal's statement that the applicant did not appear to be aware that there was a river running through Kabul was a particular fact within s 476(4)(b)."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the Tribunal did not base its adverse finding on a non-existent particular fact. The statement that the applicant did not appear to be aware that there was a river running through Kabul was an impression and was not falsified by the Tribunal's summary of the applicant's evidence. The matter actually taken into account was that the applicant, despite claiming to have lived in Kabul for ten years, did not know the name of the main river running through the city. No doubt was cast on that conclusion, and the asserted no-evidence ground was not made out.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

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