He, Chen Xin v The Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs [1995] FCA 954

He, Chen Xin v The Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs [1995] FCA 954

The grounds of review failed because they attacked the Tribunal's treatment of particular pieces of evidence rather than identifying mandatory considerations required by the Migration Act 1958; in any event, the independent evidence about disorder, barricades, suspended bus routes and train disruption in Shanghai provided a possible foundation for the Tribunal to find the applicant's account inconsistent and not credible. The Tribunal's decision was therefore not unreasonable at law and was not unsupported by evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 November 1995
Procedural Posture
Application for Review of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of a Protection Visa / Federal Court Reasons for Judgment and Orders
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'relevant and Irrelevant Considerations' 'wednesbury Unreasonableness' 'no Evidence Ground' 'credibility and Objective Country Information']
['immigration' 'administrative Law' 'refugee Law'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'relevant and Irrelevant Considerations' 'wednesbury Unreasonableness' 'no Evidence Ground' 'credibility and Objective Country Information']

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

Application for Review of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of a Protection Visa / Federal Court Reasons for Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal erred in law by taking into account irrelevant considerations and failing to take into account relevant considerations when assessing evidence about events in Shanghai on 7 June 1989.' "Whether the Tribunal's decision was unreasonable at law." "Whether the Tribunal's decision was unsupported by evidence or had no evidentiary foundation." "Whether the Tribunal had a foundation for not accepting the applicant's subjective evidence because of inconsistency with independent objective evidence."]

Ratio Decidendi

The grounds of review failed because they attacked the Tribunal's treatment of particular pieces of evidence rather than identifying mandatory considerations required by the Migration Act 1958; in any event, the independent evidence about disorder, barricades, suspended bus routes and train disruption in Shanghai provided a possible foundation for the Tribunal to find the applicant's account inconsistent and not credible. The Tribunal's decision was therefore not unreasonable at law and was not unsupported by evidence.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

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