Salim v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 1131

Salim v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 1131

The application was dismissed because it did not properly particularise any ground of review and, after considering the application, the Tribunal decision and the respondent's submissions, the Court found no proper basis for a successful review within the limited grounds available. The adjournment was refused because the applicant gave no evidence or adequate explanation of efforts to obtain legal assistance or inability to proceed, and the respondent opposed the adjournment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 July 1999
Procedural Posture
Application to Review a Decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal Affirming a Decision Not to Grant a Protection Visa / Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'judicial Review' 'migration Act 1958 (cth) S 476' 'adjournment']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'judicial Review' 'migration Act 1958 (cth) S 476' 'adjournment']

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

Application to Review a Decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal Affirming a Decision Not to Grant a Protection Visa / Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the application disclosed any grounds for review within s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).' 'Whether the applicant should be granted an adjournment to obtain legal advice and because he said he was not in a mental state to pursue the matter.' 'Whether the Refugee Review Tribunal decision provided any proper basis for successful review by the Court.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because it did not properly particularise any ground of review and, after considering the application, the Tribunal decision and the respondent's submissions, the Court found no proper basis for a successful review within the limited grounds available. The adjournment was refused because the applicant gave no evidence or adequate explanation of efforts to obtain legal assistance or inability to proceed, and the respondent opposed the adjournment.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

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