Kaddari v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 659

Kaddari v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 659

The appeal failed because criterion 4002 was validly prescribed and was not inconsistent with ss 500 and 502 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Article 33(2) requires reasonable grounds for regarding a person as a danger to security, while criterion 4002 turns on the existence of an assessment by a competent Australian authority that the person is directly or indirectly a risk to Australian national security. Because the delegate refused the visa under s 65 on the basis that criterion 4002 was not satisfied, the AAT had no jurisdiction under s 500(1)(c), which applies to refusals relying on Articles 1F, 32 or 33(2) of the Refugees Convention.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal Concerning Refusal of a Protection Visa and Administrative Appeals Tribunal Jurisdiction / Appeal From a Decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Dismissed by the Federal Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'public Interest Criterion 4002' 'national Security Assessment' 'aat Jurisdiction' 'validity of Regulations' 'refugees Convention Article 33(2)']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa' 'public Interest Criterion 4002' 'national Security Assessment' 'aat Jurisdiction' 'validity of Regulations' 'refugees Convention Article 33(2)']

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 Concerning Refusal of a Protection Visa and Administrative Appeals Tribunal Jurisdiction / Appeal From a Decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Dismissed by the Federal Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal erred in finding it had no jurisdiction under s 500(1)(c) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to review the refusal of the applicant's protection visa where the refusal was based on public interest criterion 4002." 'Whether public interest criterion 4002 in Schedule 4 to the Migration Regulations (1994) was ultra vires because it was said to be inconsistent with the review scheme in ss 500 and 502 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).' 'Whether criterion 4002 was in substance the same as Article 33(2) of the Refugees Convention.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because criterion 4002 was validly prescribed and was not inconsistent with ss 500 and 502 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Article 33(2) requires reasonable grounds for regarding a person as a danger to security, while criterion 4002 turns on the existence of an assessment by a competent Australian authority that the person is directly or indirectly a risk to Australian national security. Because the delegate refused the visa under s 65 on the basis that criterion 4002 was not satisfied, the AAT had no jurisdiction under s 500(1)(c), which applies to refusals relying on Articles 1F, 32 or 33(2) of the Refugees Convention.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'The applicant to pay the costs of the respondent.']