Manvelishvili v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1780

Manvelishvili v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1780

The applicant's submissions attacked the Tribunal's factual and credibility findings and the weight given to evidence, but did not identify a reviewable error within the limited jurisdiction conferred by s 476. The Tribunal complied with required procedures, including s 430, did not treat a single instance of harm as incapable in law of amounting to persecution, considered evidence beyond the applicant's personal experiences, and had material before it for its decision. Any alleged misunderstanding about the symbolic use of Gamsakhurdia's name was not material and did not fall within the no-evidence ground. The application was therefore dismissed with costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Application for Review Under S 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (cth) of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Upholding Refusal of a Protection Visa / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'judicial Review' 'well Founded Fear of Persecution' 'political Opinion' 'no Evidence Ground' 'error of Law' 'required Procedures']
['migration Law' 'refugee Law' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'judicial Review' 'well Founded Fear of Persecution' 'political Opinion' 'no Evidence Ground' 'error of Law' 'required Procedures']

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 Under S 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (cth) of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Upholding Refusal of a Protection Visa / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Refugee Review Tribunal failed to observe procedures required in connection with making its decision.' "Whether the Tribunal made an error of law in finding that the applicant's accepted instance of harm did not amount to persecution and that he did not have a well-founded fear of persecution." "Whether there was no evidence or other material to justify the Tribunal's decision." "Whether the applicant's challenges to factual findings, credibility findings and weight of evidence disclosed reviewable error."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's submissions attacked the Tribunal's factual and credibility findings and the weight given to evidence, but did not identify a reviewable error within the limited jurisdiction conferred by s 476. The Tribunal complied with required procedures, including s 430, did not treat a single instance of harm as incapable in law of amounting to persecution, considered evidence beyond the applicant's personal experiences, and had material before it for its decision. Any alleged misunderstanding about the symbolic use of Gamsakhurdia's name was not material and did not fall within the no-evidence ground. The application was therefore dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

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