QAAD of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 1038

QAAD of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 1038

The Tribunal did not fail to consider the matter as required after remittal; it revisited the claims and evidence, including further evidence, and there was no factual basis for lack of good faith, closed mind, breach of s 424A(1), or denial of procedural fairness. The alleged errors were either not made out, were factual complaints, or were not grounds for relief in light of s 474(1) and the Hickman principles. The Tribunal rejected a Convention reason for the bombing without real doubt, did not misapply s 91S on the findings it made, and its relocation finding was factual. The application therefore failed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 September 2002
Procedural Posture
Migration Application to Set Aside or Quash Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of Protection Visa / Federal Court Application After Earlier Remittal to the Tribunal for Further Consideration
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'privative Clause Decision' 'jurisdictional Error' 'procedural Fairness' 'bona Fide Consideration' 'convention Reason' 'relocation' 'section 91 S of the Migration Act 1958 (cth)']
['migration' 'administrative Law' 'statutory Interpretation'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'privative Clause Decision' 'jurisdictional Error' 'procedural Fairness' 'bona Fide Consideration' 'convention Reason' 'relocation' 'section 91 S of the Migration Act 1958 (cth)']

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

Migration Application to Set Aside or Quash Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of Protection Visa / Federal Court Application After Earlier Remittal to the Tribunal for Further Consideration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether, after remittal by a single judge, the Tribunal was obliged to consider the matter afresh and whether it failed to do so.' "Whether the Tribunal's approach constituted jurisdictional error or a failure to give bona fide consideration to the matter." 'Whether the Tribunal failed to comply with s 424A(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) or denied procedural fairness.' 'Whether s 474(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) precluded relief for the alleged errors.' "Whether the Tribunal was required to ask itself 'What if I am wrong' about the reason for the bombing." "Whether the Tribunal misapplied s 91S of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) in relation to alleged targeting of the applicant's father." 'Whether the Tribunal erred in its consideration of relocation to Montenegro.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not fail to consider the matter as required after remittal; it revisited the claims and evidence, including further evidence, and there was no factual basis for lack of good faith, closed mind, breach of s 424A(1), or denial of procedural fairness. The alleged errors were either not made out, were factual complaints, or were not grounds for relief in light of s 474(1) and the Hickman principles. The Tribunal rejected a Convention reason for the bombing without real doubt, did not misapply s 91S on the findings it made, and its relocation finding was factual. The application therefore failed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

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