Li v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 779

Li v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 779

The application had to be dismissed because it identified no error of law within s 476(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), none was apparent on the material before the Court, and the applicant's submissions in substance sought merits review or relied on fresh factual material beyond the Court's jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 June 1999
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 475 of the Migration Act 1958 (cth) to Review a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of a Protection Visa / Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment; Application Dismissed
Outcome
Application dismissed; applicant to pay the respondent's costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'judicial Review' 'error of Law' 'merits Review' 'fresh Evidence' 'convention Refugee Status']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'refugee Law'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'judicial Review' 'error of Law' 'merits Review' 'fresh Evidence' 'convention Refugee Status']

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 Under S 475 of the Migration Act 1958 (cth) to Review a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of a Protection Visa / Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment; Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Federal Court should set aside the Refugee Review Tribunal decision affirming refusal of a protection visa.' 'Whether the applicant identified any error of law within s 476(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).' 'Whether the application impermissibly sought merits review or relied on fresh factual material not before the Refugee Review Tribunal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application had to be dismissed because it identified no error of law within s 476(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), none was apparent on the material before the Court, and the applicant's submissions in substance sought merits review or relied on fresh factual material beyond the Court's jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; applicant to pay the respondent's costs.

Orders

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