Saha v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 772

Saha v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 772

The Tribunal did not fail to observe procedures required by s 430, did not incorrectly apply the law to facts found, and did not base its decision on facts that did not exist. The Tribunal's findings that Hindus are not generally persecuted in Bangladesh and that there is state protection were open on the material...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Samir Saha; Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 June 2001
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application (migration) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Protection Visa, Judicial Review, Tribunal Obligations to Record Findings and Reasons, Well Founded Fear of Persecution, State Protection
Migration Law Administrative Law Protection Visa Judicial Review Tribunal Obligations to Record Findings and Reasons Well Founded Fear of Persecution State Protection

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samir Saha

Applicant

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application (migration) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal failed to observe procedures required by s 430 of the Migration Act
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal incorrectly applied the law to the facts found
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal's decision was based on the existence of facts that did not exist under s 476(1)(g)

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not fail to observe procedures required by s 430, did not incorrectly apply the law to facts found, and did not base its decision on facts that did not exist. The Tribunal's findings that Hindus are not generally persecuted in Bangladesh and that there is state protection were open on the material and independent evidence. The application must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application be dismissed with costs.