Soebandi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 781

Soebandi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 781

The applicant produced no material showing that the Tribunal member had a pre-existing state of mind amounting to actual bias. The Tribunal had relied on findings about the applicant's credibility, country information, and other independent evidence concerning Chinese-Indonesians, Christians, and state protection in Indonesia, so it could not be said that there was no evidence or other material to justify the decision within s 476(1)(g), and the applicant did not satisfy s 476(4).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 June 2001
Procedural Posture
Application to Review a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming a Delegate's Refusal to Grant a Protection Visa / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'actual Bias' 'no Evidence Ground' 'well Founded Fear of Persecution']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'refugee Law'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'actual Bias' 'no Evidence Ground' 'well Founded Fear of Persecution']

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 to Review a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming a Delegate's Refusal to Grant a Protection Visa / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Refugee Review Tribunal's decision was induced or affected by actual bias." "Whether there was no evidence or other material to justify the Refugee Review Tribunal's decision." "Whether the Court should interfere with the Refugee Review Tribunal's factual findings concerning the applicant's claimed fear of persecution in Indonesia."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant produced no material showing that the Tribunal member had a pre-existing state of mind amounting to actual bias. The Tribunal had relied on findings about the applicant's credibility, country information, and other independent evidence concerning Chinese-Indonesians, Christians, and state protection in Indonesia, so it could not be said that there was no evidence or other material to justify the decision within s 476(1)(g), and the applicant did not satisfy s 476(4).

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

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