Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Indatissa [2001] FCA 181

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Indatissa [2001] FCA 181

The appeal was allowed because the translation supplied by Mr Jayakody was evidence before the Tribunal capable of supporting the Tribunal's finding of a discrepancy about the frequency or duration of Tamil visitors staying at the family home. Even assuming the Tribunal relied on a particular fact that later evidence suggested did not exist, s 476(1)(g) was not established because s 476(4)(b) is not sufficient by itself and the Court cannot reassess the weight of Tribunal evidence or receive contradictory evidence to convert the matter into a no evidence ground. In any event, the discrepancy was only one of many factors supporting the Tribunal's rejection of the claims.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal Concerning Refusal of Protection Visas and Review of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision / Appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court From Orders Setting Aside the Tribunal Decision and Remitting the Protection Visa Applications
Outcome
Appeal allowed. The primary judge erred in setting aside the Tribunal decision on the ground in s 476(1)(g); the application for review was to be dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visas' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'judicial Review' 'no Evidence Ground' 'migration Act 1958 S 476(1)(g)' 'migration Act 1958 S 476(4)' 'translation Evidence' 'credibility Findings']
['migration' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visas' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'judicial Review' 'no Evidence Ground' 'migration Act 1958 S 476(1)(g)' 'migration Act 1958 S 476(4)' 'translation Evidence' 'credibility Findings']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Migration Appeal Concerning Refusal of Protection Visas and Review of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision / Appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court From Orders Setting Aside the Tribunal Decision and Remitting the Protection Visa Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal\'s decision was affected by a supposed discrepancy between a Sinhalese phrase translated as "several times a month" and "several times for a month".' 'Whether the supposed discrepancy constituted a particular fact for the purposes of s 476(4)(b).' "Whether the Tribunal's decision was based on the existence of a particular fact that did not exist." "Whether there was no evidence or other material to justify the making of the Tribunal's decision under s 476(1)(g)." 'Whether satisfaction of s 476(4)(b) is sufficient to establish the ground in s 476(1)(g).' 'Whether s 476(1)(g) permits the Court to make a qualitative assessment of the evidence before the Tribunal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the translation supplied by Mr Jayakody was evidence before the Tribunal capable of supporting the Tribunal's finding of a discrepancy about the frequency or duration of Tamil visitors staying at the family home. Even assuming the Tribunal relied on a particular fact that later evidence suggested did not exist, s 476(1)(g) was not established because s 476(4)(b) is not sufficient by itself and the Court cannot reassess the weight of Tribunal evidence or receive contradictory evidence to convert the matter into a no evidence ground. In any event, the discrepancy was only one of many factors supporting the Tribunal's rejection of the claims.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. The primary judge erred in setting aside the Tribunal decision on the ground in s 476(1)(g); the application for review was to be dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be allowed.' "The respondents pay the appellant's costs."]