Kone v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 66; [2002] FCA 294

Kone v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 66; [2002] FCA 294

The appeal was dismissed because none of the grounds demonstrated legal error in the Tribunal's reasons or processes or in the primary judge's decision. The section 420 ground was unavailable, section 424A did not apply to the Tribunal's non-acceptance of Mr Kone's claims, the sur place ground was based on events after the decision under appeal, and the remaining grounds were factual disagreements rather than legal grounds.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 March 2002
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal / Appeal From a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia Dismissing an Application for Review of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'judicial Review' 'substantial Justice' 'adverse Information' 'sur Place Claim']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'refugee Law'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'judicial Review' 'substantial Justice' 'adverse Information' 'sur Place Claim']

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

Migration Appeal / Appeal From a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia Dismissing an Application for Review of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal failed to act in accordance with the substantial justice of the case contrary to section 420 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).' 'Whether the Tribunal acted contrary to section 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) by failing to refer information to Mr Kone on which it based its decision.' "Whether Mr Kone's alleged appearance on A Current Affair after the primary judge's decision could found a sur place claim in the appeal." "Whether the grounds of appeal disclosed legal error rather than disagreement with the Tribunal's factual findings."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because none of the grounds demonstrated legal error in the Tribunal's reasons or processes or in the primary judge's decision. The section 420 ground was unavailable, section 424A did not apply to the Tribunal's non-acceptance of Mr Kone's claims, the sur place ground was based on events after the decision under appeal, and the remaining grounds were factual disagreements rather than legal grounds.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

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