SBBG v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 1315

SBBG v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 1315

The Refugee Review Tribunal conducted its proceedings without bias and procedural fairness was accorded; the Tribunal properly construed and applied s 91R of the Migration Act, finding that although applicants suffered discrimination, they did not experience serious harm required to establish persecution under the Act; there was no jurisdictional error warranting review.

Parties
Applicant: SBBG; Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Final Judgment at Remitted Hearing After Appeal to Full Court
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Protection Visas, Procedural Fairness, Bias, Interpretation of S 91 R of Migration Act
Migration Law Administrative Law Protection Visas Procedural Fairness Bias Interpretation of S 91 R of Migration Act

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 7 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SBBG

Applicant

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / Final Judgment at Remitted Hearing After Appeal to Full Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether reasonable apprehension of bias arose in the conduct of the Refugee Review Tribunal proceedings
  2. 2 Whether denial of procedural fairness occurred in the Tribunal's handling of evidence
  3. 3 Interpretation and application of s 91R of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) regarding serious harm

Ratio Decidendi

The Refugee Review Tribunal conducted its proceedings without bias and procedural fairness was accorded; the Tribunal properly construed and applied s 91R of the Migration Act, finding that although applicants suffered discrimination, they did not experience serious harm required to establish persecution under the Act; there was no jurisdictional error warranting review.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.