Hauw v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1675

Hauw v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1675

The Tribunal did not commit the alleged reviewable errors. The country information was plainly relevant to the issue before the Tribunal and, in the absence of contrary material showing deterioration during 2000, its age did not render it irrelevant or amount to legal error or a no evidence basis. The question whether risks arising in times of economic downturn had the requisite official quality was a factual matter for the Tribunal, which made its own assessment without error.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 July 2001
Procedural Posture
Application for Review Under Pt 8 of the Migration Act 1958 (cth) of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of Protection Visas / Final Judgment in the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal Review' 'well Founded Fear of Persecution' 'ethnic Chinese in Indonesia' 'country Information' 'state Protection' 'no Evidence Ground' 'error of Law']
['migration' 'administrative Law' 'refugee Law'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal Review' 'well Founded Fear of Persecution' 'ethnic Chinese in Indonesia' 'country Information' 'state Protection' 'no Evidence Ground' 'error of Law']

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 Under Pt 8 of the Migration Act 1958 (cth) of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of Protection Visas / Final Judgment in the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Refugee Review Tribunal erred by relying on country information that was not sufficiently contemporaneous.' 'Whether reliance on the country information amounted to an error of law under s 476(1)(e) or established the no evidence ground under s 476(1)(d).' 'Whether the Tribunal failed to observe procedures prescribed by s 430(1)(d).' "Whether there needed to be evidence that economic conditions in Indonesia at the time of the Tribunal's decision did not constitute a downturn." 'Whether risks to ethnic Chinese in Indonesia had the requisite official quality of persecution.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not commit the alleged reviewable errors. The country information was plainly relevant to the issue before the Tribunal and, in the absence of contrary material showing deterioration during 2000, its age did not render it irrelevant or amount to legal error or a no evidence basis. The question whether risks arising in times of economic downturn had the requisite official quality was a factual matter for the Tribunal, which made its own assessment without error.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

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