Li, Xiang Sheng v Refugee Review Tribunal & Anor [1996] FCA 1049

Li, Xiang Sheng v Refugee Review Tribunal & Anor [1996] FCA 1049

The application failed because Part 8, Division 2 of the Migration Act governed review and the Tribunal did not fail to observe any required procedure. The Tribunal was aware of and considered the applicant's request that evidence be obtained from named witnesses in China, gave reasons for declining to do so, and s 426(3) did not require it to obtain that evidence or make further inquiries in the circumstances. Any ADJR procedural fairness claim would also fail because the evidence was not shown to be centrally relevant or readily available in a way requiring inquiry. The alleged inconsistency did not exist and did not disclose a reviewable error. The no evidence ground was not made out...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 August 1996
Procedural Posture
Application for Review of a Decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal Refusing a Protection Visa / Federal Court Judicial Review
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal Procedure' 'natural Justice' 'no Evidence Ground of Review' 'migration Act S 426(3)' 'migration Act S 476']
['immigration' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal Procedure' 'natural Justice' 'no Evidence Ground of Review' 'migration Act S 426(3)' 'migration Act S 476']

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

Application for Review of a Decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal Refusing a Protection Visa / Federal Court Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Refugee Review Tribunal failed to comply with Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 426(3) by not obtaining evidence from witnesses nominated by the applicant in China.' "Whether the Tribunal's failure to pursue evidence from nominated witnesses breached procedural fairness or natural justice under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth)." "Whether there was an inconsistency in the Tribunal accepting the applicant's account of past events but not accepting his evidence about regulations preventing military personnel leaving China." "Whether the Tribunal's conclusion that there was no real chance of persecution for a Convention reason was reviewable on the no evidence ground under Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 476(1)(g), 476(4)(b)." 'Whether Part 8, Division 2 of the Migration Act applied so as to prevent review under the ADJR Act.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application failed because Part 8, Division 2 of the Migration Act governed review and the Tribunal did not fail to observe any required procedure. The Tribunal was aware of and considered the applicant's request that evidence be obtained from named witnesses in China, gave reasons for declining to do so, and s 426(3) did not require it to obtain that evidence or make further inquiries in the circumstances. Any ADJR procedural fairness claim would also fail because the evidence was not shown to be centrally relevant or readily available in a way requiring inquiry. The alleged inconsistency did not exist and did not disclose a reviewable error. The no evidence ground was not made out...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for review be dismissed with costs.']