SAAF v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 79; [2002] FCA 343

SAAF v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 79; [2002] FCA 343

The Tribunal did not commit error within s 476(1)(b), s 476(1)(c) or s 476(1)(e) of the Migration Act because no statutory declaration from the appellant's father was before it, the appellant had already had adequate opportunity to obtain such evidence, and the Tribunal's decision not to allow further delay was a discretionary matter informed by relevant material before it.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal in Migration Judicial Review Concerning Refusal of a Protection Visa / Full Court Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
The application was dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'corroborative Evidence' 'adjournment or Further Evidence' 'jurisdictional Error' 'well Founded Fear of Persecution']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'refugee Law'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'corroborative Evidence' 'adjournment or Further Evidence' 'jurisdictional Error' 'well Founded Fear of Persecution']

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

Appeal in Migration Judicial Review Concerning Refusal of a Protection Visa / Full Court Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Refugee Review Tribunal committed reviewable error under s 476(1)(b), s 476(1)(c) or s 476(1)(e) of the Migration Act by stating that possible corroborative evidence from the appellant's father would not assist it." 'Whether the Tribunal was required to delay its decision to allow the appellant to obtain a statutory declaration from his father.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not commit error within s 476(1)(b), s 476(1)(c) or s 476(1)(e) of the Migration Act because no statutory declaration from the appellant's father was before it, the appellant had already had adequate opportunity to obtain such evidence, and the Tribunal's decision not to allow further delay was a discretionary matter informed by relevant material before it.

Court Disposition

The application was dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed;' "The appellant pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to this appeal."]