Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 431">migration law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 431">whether provisions of s 424a(1) of the migration act 1958 (cth) were observed by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 431">whether wrongly finding that appellant had not made in original claim was mere error of fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 431">where factual error demonstrates jurisdictional error on part of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 431">treatment of omissions in evidence of applicant by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 431">whether jurisdictional error on part of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 431">appeal allowed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 16">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 16">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 16">appeal from federal magistrates court order dismissing application for constitutional writs to quash decision of refuge review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 16">whether inquisitorial function of tribunal duly performed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 16">whether tribunal failed to provide procedural fairness to appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 16">whether "jurisdictional error" in tribunal's decision.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">applicant veal of 2002 v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">where tribunal reviewed an unsolicited letter received by the department of immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs, which made allegations against the appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">where tribunal did not inform the appellant of the existence of the letter or its contents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">where tribunal affirmed decision under review and said that in reaching its decision it gave no weight to the letter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">whether procedural fairness required the tribunal to inform the appellant of the existence of the letter or its contents.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1315">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1315">rrt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1315">pakistani feared persecution by smugglers and religious fanatics</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1315">tribunal found no convention related fears</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1315">no error found.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 29">applicant nabd of 2002 v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 29">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 29">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 29">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 29">appellant, an iranian, sought a protection visa on the basis that he had converted to christianity after leaving iran</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 29">refugee review tribunal twice affirmed decision to refuse the appellant a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 29">relying on information contained in a country profile, the tribunal distinguished between christians in iran who quietly go about their devotions and those who actively or conspicuously proselytise, and considered that only the latter group would encounter a real chance of persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 29">whether tribunal asked itself a wrong question by seeking to categorise the way in which the appellant expressed his beliefs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2005] HCA 29">whether tribunal addressed whether appellant had a well-founded fear of persecution on the ground of religion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2005] HCA 29">whether tribunal had committed jurisdictional error similar to the error identified in appellant s395/2002 v minister for immigration and multicultural affairs .  international human rights law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2005] HCA 29">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[2005] HCA 29">refugees convention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[2005] HCA 29">ground of religion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[2005] HCA 29">freedom of religion as a basic human right.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">nt power generation pty ltd v power and water authority  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">market definition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">substantial degree of market power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">where statutory authority had a monopoly in the markets for electricity transmission and distribution services and for electricity supply</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">where authority owned the transmission and distribution infrastructure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">where no transactions occurred in the transmission and distribution services market</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">whether authority's control of the infrastructure gave it market power in both markets</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss 46(1) , 46 (4)(c).  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">misuse of market power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">taking advantage of market power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">proscribed purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">whether statutory authority's refusal of access to its infrastructure involved taking advantage of its market power or only of its proprietary rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">whether refusal was due to a "direction" from the minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">whether minister's purpose in giving direction meant authority's refusal was not for a proscribed purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.14">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">whether authority's regulatory role meant refusal was not for a proscribed purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.15">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">trade practices act 1974 (cth), s 46(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.16">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">power and water authority act (nt), s 16.  crown</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.17">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">immunity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.18">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">crown in right of the northern territory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.19">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">carrying on a business under the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.20">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">exceptions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.21">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">where statutory authority had a monopoly in the markets for electricity transmission and distribution services and for electricity supply</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.22">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">where authority owned the transmission and distribution infrastructure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.23">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">whether authority's exclusive use of the infrastructure was part of carrying on a business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.24">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">whether refusal of access to infrastructure was merely refusal of a "licence" and thus not part of carrying on a business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.25">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss 2b, 2c(1)(b).  crown</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.26">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">immunity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.27">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">crown in right of the northern territory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.28">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">"emanation of the crown"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.29">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">where statutory authority established by the territory government was the sole beneficial owner of a trading corporation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.30">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">where corporation incorporated under general enactment for the incorporation of companies rather than specific statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.31">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">where corporation acquired for specific government purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.32">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">whether corporation was an "emanation of the crown".  crown</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.33">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">immunity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.34">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">crown in right of the northern territory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.35">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">"derivative crown immunity"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.36">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">where statutory authority established by the territory government was the sole beneficial owner of a trading corporation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.37">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">where corporation entered into contracts with third parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.38">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">where financial interests of the government potentially prejudiced by preventing enforcement of those contracts under the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.39">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">where no legal or proprietary interests of the government affected</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.40">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">whether corporation could claim "derivative crown immunity".  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.41">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.42">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">where points made in original pleadings but not relied on and no evidence called at trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.43">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">whether points can be taken on appeal.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs v sglb  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">expert medical advice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">psychological state of applicant assumed to be possible explanation for unsatisfactory evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">whether denial of procedural fairness by failing to order further psychological assessment of applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">whether denial of procedural fairness by accepting that applicant suffered stress disorder</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">whether denial of procedural fairness by acceptance of effects of disorder on applicant without expert medical advice.  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">privative clause</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">whether putative errors of the refugee review tribunal fell within the operation of s 474 of the migration act 1958 (cth).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2003] HCA 71">appellant s395/2002 v minister for immigration and multicultural affairs  appellant s396/2002 v minister for immigration and multicultural affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2003] HCA 71">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2003] HCA 71">particular social group identified as homosexual men in bangladesh</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2003] HCA 71">whether well-founded fear of persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2003] HCA 71">whether error of law by refugee review tribunal in finding that no real chance of persecution because appellants conducted themselves discreetly and would continue to do so</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[2003] HCA 71">whether finding had effect of requiring appellants to act discreetly to avoid persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[2003] HCA 71">whether need to act discreetly to avoid serious harm constituted persecution.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[2003] HCA 56">re minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs; ex parte palme  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[2003] HCA 56">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[2003] HCA 56">minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[2003] HCA 56">decision to cancel visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[2003] HCA 56">whether decision affected by jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[2003] HCA 56">whether prosecutor denied procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[2003] HCA 56">whether constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[2003] HCA 56">whether decision affected by " wednesbury unreasonableness"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[2003] HCA 56">whether alleged failure by minister to notify prosecutor in writing of reasons for decision infected decision with jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[2003] HCA 56">migration act 1958 (cth), s 501g.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[2002] HCA 32">minister for immigration and multicultural affairs v rajamanikkam  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[2002] HCA 32">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[2002] HCA 32">decision of a delegate to the minister for immigration and multicultural affairs refusing the respondent's application for protection visa and refugee status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[2002] HCA 32">delegate's decision affirmed by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[2002] HCA 32">respondent from sri lanka lodged application for refugee status and protection visa on basis of fear of persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[2002] HCA 32">refugee review tribunal rejected the respondent's application concluding the primary claim was concocted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[2002] HCA 32">consideration of the scope of "no evidence" ground of review in s 476(1)(g) and s 476(4) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[2002] HCA 32">whether factors identified by refugee review tribunal going to the credibility of the respondent were based on facts that did not exist</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[2002] HCA 32">whether "no evidence" ground made out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[2002] HCA 32">whether particular facts on which the respondent relied did exist</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[2002] HCA 32">whether particular facts that did not exist were critical to the making of the refugee review tribunal's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">cited from="[2002] HCA 32">relevance of similar provisions in administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth).  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">cited from="[2002] HCA 32">judicial review of administrative decisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.13">cited from="[2002] HCA 32">no evidence ground in migration act 1958 (cth), ss 476(1)(g) and (4)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.14">cited from="[2002] HCA 32">adverse finding as to credibility of male applicant for refugee status and protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.15">cited from="[2002] HCA 32">whether such finding invalidated in law because "based on" the existence of a particular fact, critical to the decision, found on review to be unsupported by evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.16">cited from="[2002] HCA 32">importance of distinction between judicial review and merits review of factual conclusions.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 167">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 167">consent to development applications</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 167">requirement to "take into consideration" development control plan</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 167">environmental planning and assessment act 1979 , s79c(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 167">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 167">appeal on question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 167">land and environment court act 1979 , s56a.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[1996] HCA 18">commonwealth constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[1996] HCA 18">separation of judicial and non-judicial powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[1996] HCA 18">vesting of non-judicial power in persona designata</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[1996] HCA 18">incompatibility with commonwealth judicial power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[1996] HCA 18">common law doctrine of incompatibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[1996] HCA 18">judicial independence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[1996] HCA 18">compatibility judged by reference to the function conferred, connection with non-judicial branch and independence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">cited from="[1996] HCA 18">nomination of a ch iii judge as persona designata to provide a report to a federal minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">cited from="[1996] HCA 18">s 10(1)(c) of the aboriginal and torres strait islander heritage protection act 1984 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">cited from="[1996] HCA 18">condition precedent to the exercise of a discretionary power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">cited from="[1996] HCA 18">incompatible function.   aborigines</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.11">cited from="[1996] HCA 18">nomination by a minister pursuant to s 10(1)(c) of the aboriginal and torres strait islander heritage protection act 1984 (cth) of a "person" to provide a report</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.12">cited from="[1996] HCA 18">no power to nominate a person who is a ch iii judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.13">cited from="[1996] HCA 18">function incompatible with ch iii judicial power.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">application to review decisions of minister's delegates refusing claim for refugee status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">application of chan v minister for immigration and ethnic affairs [1989] hca 62 ; (1989) 169 clr 379</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">'real chance' of persecution test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">whether delegates failed properly to consider real chance of persecution.   administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">decisions as to 'refugee status'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">proper role of reviewing court.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">cited from="[1992] HCA 47">repatriation pension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">cited from="[1992] HCA 47">incapacity arising from war-caused injury or disease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">cited from="[1992] HCA 47">connexion between incapacity and war service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">cited from="[1992] HCA 47">commission required to find incapacity war-caused unless satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that no sufficient ground for so finding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">cited from="[1992] HCA 47">commission required to be so satisfied if of opinion that material does not raise reasonable hypothesis connecting incapacity with service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">cited from="[1992] HCA 47">relationship between requirements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">cited from="[1992] HCA 47">"reasonable hypothesis"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">cited from="[1992] HCA 47">veterans' entitlements act 1986 (cth), s. 120.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">cited from="[1990] FCA 364">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">cited from="[1990] FCA 364">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">cited from="[1990] FCA 364">decision to refuse application for resident status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">cited from="[1990] FCA 364">whether decision unreasonable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">cited from="[1990] FCA 364">when and on what grounds factual errors may be reviewed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">cited from="[1990] FCA 364">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">cited from="[1990] FCA 364">what material decision-maker must consider in application for entry permit.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">cited from="[1990] FCA 364">de facto marraige alleged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.8">cited from="[1990] FCA 364">whether "some basis" to reject permanence of relationship.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">cited from="[1987] FCA 457">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">cited from="[1987] FCA 457">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">cited from="[1987] FCA 457">applications for permanent resident status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">cited from="[1987] FCA 457">applicants members of a bengali family</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">cited from="[1987] FCA 457">one child of the marriage an australian citizen</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">cited from="[1987] FCA 457">applications for resident status refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">cited from="[1987] FCA 457">failure of decisionmaker to give proper, genuine and realistic consideration to the merits of the applications in exercising his discretion in accordance with policy.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">immigration and aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">deportation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">power of minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">principles of natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">whether applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.5">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">standing as australian citizen of infant daughter of aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.6">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">intended deportation order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.7">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">whether notice required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.8">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">migration act 1958 (cth), ss. 6 , 6a, 7 , 18 .  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.9">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.10">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.11">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.12">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">order for deportation of aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.13">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">review of decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.14">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), ss. 5 , 13 .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">cited from="[1953] HCA 22">industrial law (cth.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">cited from="[1953] HCA 22">stevedoring industry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">cited from="[1953] HCA 22">registration of employer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">cited from="[1953] HCA 22">cancellation or suspension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.4">cited from="[1953] HCA 22">"unfit to be registered as an employer"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.5">cited from="[1953] HCA 22">interference with proper performance of stevedoring operations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.6">cited from="[1953] HCA 22">control and supervision of employees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.7">cited from="[1953] HCA 22">inquiry by delegate of stevedoring board</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.8">cited from="[1953] HCA 22">prohibition to restrain delegate prior to making order of cancellation or suspension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.9">cited from="[1953] HCA 22">bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.10">cited from="[1953] HCA 22">prejudgment of issues</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.11">cited from="[1953] HCA 22">statement to newspaper reporter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.12">cited from="[1953] HCA 22">stevedoring industry act 1949 (no. 39 of 1949), s. 23 (1) (a) (b).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 237">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 237">visa cancellation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 237">character test applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 237">upheld by aat</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.4">citing from="[2011] FCA 237">judicial review of tribunal's decision sought</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.5">citing from="[2011] FCA 237">errors of law alleged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.6">citing from="[2011] FCA 237">failure to take into account "primary considerations"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.7">citing from="[2011] FCA 237">failure to apply two-step test to factors prescribed in ministerial direction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.8">citing from="[2011] FCA 237">failure to weigh best interests of a child against other considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.9">citing from="[2011] FCA 237">hierarchy of considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.10">citing from="[2011] FCA 237">improper exercise of power alleged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.11">citing from="[2011] FCA 237">best interests of the child not accorded primary consideration over other interests</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.12">citing from="[2011] FCA 237">failure to enquire alleged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.13">citing from="[2011] FCA 237">none of the appeal grounds made out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.14">citing from="[2011] FCA 237">appeal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.0">citing from="[2011] FMCA 89">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.1">citing from="[2011] FMCA 89">review of a decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.2">citing from="[2011] FMCA 89">consideration of weight assigned by the tribunal to documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.3">citing from="[2011] FMCA 89">whether the way the tribunal dealt with the documents before it was illogical, irrational or unreasonable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.4">citing from="[2011] FMCA 89">whether tribunal finding was "oxymoronic"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.5">citing from="[2011] FMCA 89">whether the tribunal did not take into account or into consideration corroborative documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.6">citing from="[2011] FMCA 89">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.7">citing from="[2011] FMCA 89">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.0">citing from="[2011] FMCA 4">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.1">citing from="[2011] FMCA 4">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.2">citing from="[2011] FMCA 4">refusal of a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.3">citing from="[2011] FMCA 4">applicant claiming political persecution in nepal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.4">citing from="[2011] FMCA 4">applicant disbelieved in relation to certain aspects of his claims of past harm</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.5">citing from="[2011] FMCA 4">whether the tribunal failed to give "proper, realistic and genuine" consideration to the applicant's claims and evidence considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.6">citing from="[2011] FMCA 4">whether the tribunal considered irrelevant matters or failed to consider relevant matters considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.7">citing from="[2011] FMCA 4">whether the tribunal decision was irrational, illogical or unreasonable considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.8">citing from="[2011] FMCA 4">whether the tribunal breached s.425 of the migration act 1958 (cth) considered.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 53">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 53">appeal from decision of federal magistrate upholding an application for review of decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 53">whether refugee review tribunal failed to take into account a relevant consideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 53">whether decision affected by jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.4">citing from="[2011] FCA 53">whether psychologist's report is corroborative evidence of claim to be a refugee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.5">citing from="[2011] FCA 53">whether failure to consider report as corroborative amounts to jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.6">citing from="[2011] FCA 53">whether refugee review tribunal misunderstood the purpose of psychologist's report</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.7">citing from="[2011] FCA 53">making findings on credibility is the function of the decision-maker</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.8">citing from="[2011] FCA 53">it is a matter for the tribunal to determine the weight to be given to a psychologist's report</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.9">citing from="[2011] FCA 53">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.10">citing from="[2011] FCA 53">appeal allowed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 670">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 670">review of aat decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 670">application for business skills visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 670">where applicant owned a property development company which had built 3 houses, two of which were listed for sale, and invested $2.1 million</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 670">whether on facts as found the tribunal was entitled to find that applicant's company was not an "eligible business" under s.134 or that the applicant had not made genuine efforts to establish a business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 670">residual discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.6">citing from="[2010] FMCA 670">whether tribunal fettered its discretion by limiting it to unanticipated circumstances or failed to take into account amount invested</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.7">citing from="[2010] FMCA 670">whether tribunal failed to give proper, genuine or realistic consideration to submissions concerning genuine efforts and residual discretion.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 489">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 489">review of rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 489">where tribunal accepted that the applicant was a bnp supporter but did not find him to be politically active</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 489">whether tribunal relied on a false dichotomy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 489">whether tribunal failed to take into account evidence of particular witness or made findings not supported by the evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 489">where witness account not corroborative of applicant's claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.6">citing from="[2010] FMCA 489">where applicant submitted a large quantity of extra information after tribunal hearing, some of which was inconsistent with his oral evidence and was relied on by the tribunal to make adverse credibility findings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.7">citing from="[2010] FMCA 489">whether these inconsistencies constituted new issues such as to require the tribunal to invite the applicant to a further hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.8">citing from="[2010] FMCA 489">whether tribunal failed to address a claim clearly arising from the applicant's submissions.  migration act 1958 (cth), ss.92r(3), 424a , 425  craig v state of south australia [1995] hca 58 ; (1995) 184 clr 163  minister for aboriginal affairs v peko-wallsend limited [1986] hca 40 ; (1986) 162 clr 24</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1577">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1577">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1577">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 1577">applicant for protection visa provided 2 letters, from a former employer and headmaster of his children's school, from home country in support of his claim of persecution by maoist insurgents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 1577">dfat investigated the letters, at the request of an earlier tribunal, and found them to be genuine</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 1577">tribunal member accepted that letters were bona fide</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 1577">tribunal gave the letters "no weight" because applicant had "solicited" them in support of his claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 1577">giving no weight constituted a failure to give proper, genuine and realistic consideration to the objective, credible, third party material corroborating the applicant's claim of the applicant's claim and thus fell into jurisdictional error   administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 1577">bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 1577">apparent bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.10">citing from="[2009] FCA 1577">applicant for protection visa provided 2 letters, from a former employer and headmaster of his children's school, from home country in support of his claim of persecution by maoist insurgents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.11">citing from="[2009] FCA 1577">tribunal member described the applicant's evidence as "back-tracking" and a "baseless tactic"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.12">citing from="[2009] FCA 1577">the claim and evidence in support was made consistently throughout the application and review process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.13">citing from="[2009] FCA 1577">characterisation of applicant's claims as "baseless tactic" was made without evidence and conflicted with the objective evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.14">citing from="[2009] FCA 1577">a fair minded lay observer or properly informed law person would regard the tribunal's characterisation of the applicant's claims as apparently biased    anderson v director-general of the department of environmental and climate change [2008] nswca 337 ; (2008) 251 alr 633 discussed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1067">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1067">appeal from orders made by federal magistrate's court dismissing appellants' application for review of decision of tribunal refusing appellants protection visas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1067">where appellants had been persecuted in calcutta in india because first appellant was successful businessman and supporter of political party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 1067">whether tribunal committed jurisdictional error in connection with its conclusion of adequate state protection and its conclusion with respect to relocation within india  held: appeal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 1067">tribunal did not commit jurisdictional error in relation to its finding of adequate state protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 1067">no error of approach or procedural error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 1067">tribunal did not commit jurisdictional error in relation to its finding of relocation within india</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 1067">no well-founded fear of persecution in other parts of india and open to tribunal to find reasonable in sense of practicable for appellants to relocate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 966">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 966">application to review decision of migration review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 966">migration act 1958 (cth) s 499</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 966">subclass ul sponsored family visitor visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 966">whether jurisdictional error in decision of tribunal to refuse grant of visitor visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 966">appellant mother of visa applicant previously granted asylum in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 966">tribunal's treatment of question of whether visa applicant's intention to only to visit australia genuine</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 966">migration regulations 1994 (cth) cl 679.224</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 966">court may but has no obligation to identify other grounds of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 966">principles going to "satisfaction of the minister" with respect to a condition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.10">citing from="[2009] FCA 966">whether tribunal failed to take into account a relevant consideration being the specific circumstances of the visa applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.11">citing from="[2009] FCA 966">whether tribunal gave genuine consideration to reasons of visa applicant and appellant for the visa applicant's proposed visit australia when assessing genuineness of proposed visit under cl 679.224</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.12">citing from="[2009] FCA 966">whether tribunal considered the situation of all ahmadi muslims in pakistan instead of the situation of the visa applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.13">citing from="[2009] FCA 966">whether the tribunal asked itself the wrong question   held: appeal allowed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.14">citing from="[2009] FCA 966">jurisdictional error due to failure of tribunal to ask itself correct question and failure to take into account a relevant consideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.15">citing from="[2009] FCA 966">the decision of the federal magistrate be set aside</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.16">citing from="[2009] FCA 966">the decision of the migration review tribunal be quashed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.17">citing from="[2009] FCA 966">the decision be remitted back to a differently constituted tribunal to be heard and decided again according to law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 583">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 583">review of decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 583">tribunal's application of s.91r(3)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 583">whether tribunal had regard to applicant's conduct in assessing credibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 583">whether s.91r(3) requires "sole" or "dominant" purpose test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 583">whether tribunal applied "dominant" purpose test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 583">tribunal's decision record read fairly</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 583">inference drawn that tribunal did not use conduct in australia in making adverse credibility finding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.8">citing from="[2009] FMCA 583">section 91r(3) requires "sole" purpose test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.9">citing from="[2009] FMCA 583">tribunal applied "dominant" purpose test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.10">citing from="[2009] FMCA 583">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.11">citing from="[2009] FMCA 583">relief granted.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 361">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 361">review of decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 361">no failure to consider relevant facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 361">adverse credibility finding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 361">findings open to the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 361">no failure to afford applicant procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 361">no failure to apply the correct test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 361">no failure to consider integers of applicant's</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.8">citing from="[2009] FMCA 361">no failure to consider applicant's claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.9">citing from="[2009] FMCA 361">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.10">citing from="[2009] FMCA 361">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 233">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 233">review of decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 233">applicants who are minors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 233">seeking impermissible merits review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 233">findings open to the tribunal on what was before it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 233">tribunal did not act unreasonably</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 233">whether tribunal erroneously considered s.91r(3)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 233">tribunal did commit jurisdictional error in considering s.91r(3)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.8">citing from="[2009] FMCA 233">error did not deny the applicants procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.9">citing from="[2009] FMCA 233">discretion to allow relief not exercised</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.10">citing from="[2009] FMCA 233">application dismissed with costs.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1690">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1690">review of decision of rrt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1690">where applicant claimed that his dissent to the compulsory acquisition of his property by the chinese authorities led to persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1690">where applicant provided inconsistent written and oral evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1690">where tribunal sent a s.424a letter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1690">whether the manner in which applicant responded or failed to respond to questions constitutes "information" under s.424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.6">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1690">whether conclusions of tribunal legitimately drawn from the evidence.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1758">trade and commerce</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1758">trade practices act 1974 (cth), part xic, telecommunications industry and access regime</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1758">dispute between telstra and optus regarding access to unconditioned local loop service (ulls) in multi-dwelling units (mdus)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1758">resolution of access dispute by australian competition and consumer commission (accc)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1758">final determination made by accc establishing regime for ordering and provisioning of ulls</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 1758">whether final determination lawfully made  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 1758">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 1758">grounds of review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 1758">appeal under administrative decisions (judicial review) (adjr) act 1977 (cth), s 5</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.9">citing from="[2008] FCA 1758">whether final determination unlawfully made on grounds that, in making final determination, accc: (1) did not take into account telstra's direct costs of providing access to the ulls (s 152cr(1)(d)); or (2) did not properly have regard to industry code as model terms and conditions (152aqb(9)) or otherwise (s 152cr(2)); or (3) failed to specify with reasonable precision or certainty terms and conditions relating access (s 152cp(2)); or (4) was so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have so exercised the power ( wednesbury unreasonableness); or (5) exceeded its jurisdiction by incorrectly assuming a matter upon which the exercise of its jurisdiction depended (s 152cp(1)) trade and commerce</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.10">citing from="[2008] FCA 1758">trade practices act , part xic, div 8</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.11">citing from="[2008] FCA 1758">extent to which accc's earlier determination adopted industry code standards regarding ordering and provisioning of ulls</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.12">citing from="[2008] FCA 1758">mandatory terms of s 152aqb(1)(b) and (3) which stated respectively that accc "must make a written determination setting out model terms and conditions relating to access to each core service" and that accc "must take all reasonable steps to ensure that" such a determination is made within six months after commencement of section</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.13">citing from="[2008] FCA 1758">whether accc had discretion to declare some but not all model terms and conditions relating to core service statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.14">citing from="[2008] FCA 1758">clear words used by parliament requiring accc to make written determination to set out model terms and conditions relating to ulls and to take all reasonable steps to do so within six months</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.15">citing from="[2008] FCA 1758">explanatory memorandum qualifying clear words in bill</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1437">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1437">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1437">other family (migrant) (class bo) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1437">migration review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1437">whether tribunal failed to comply with migration act 1958 (cth) s.359a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1437">whether tribunal failed to address the applicants' claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.6">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1437">whether tribunal failed to undertake its review function under migration act 1958 s.348(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.7">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1437">whether tribunal failed to comply with migration act 1958 s.360</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.8">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1437">apprehension of bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.9">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1437">whether tribunal misconstrued migration regulations 1994 (cth) reg 1.15a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.10">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1437">whether tribunal made finding where there was no evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.11">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1437">whether tribunal failed to give genuine consideration to the evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.12">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1437">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.13">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1437">certiorari</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.14">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1437">mandamus.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 974">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 974">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 974">refusal of a protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 974">no reviewable error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 974">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 911">migration law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 911">review of decisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 911">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 911">conduct of review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 911">hearings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 911">whether the tribunal accorded applicant natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 911">whether the tribunal had adequately identified to applicant for review "the issues arising in relation to the decision under review" as required by s 425(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 149">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 149">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 149">apprehension of bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 149">test to be applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 149">leave to raise a new ground of appeal refused migration law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 149">migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 149">s 425(1) does not confer upon an applicant a unilateral right to secure an adjournment of proceedings so that particular evidence can be presented</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 149">s 425(1) complied with as long as applicant is given a meaningful opportunity to give evidence and present arguments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 1684">extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 1684">extradition request</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 1684">notice of receipt of</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 1684">where two notices have been issued</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 1684">where second notice has been issued as a notice amending the first</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.5">citing from="[2007] FCA 1684">where second notice has been issued by a different minister to the first extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.6">citing from="[2007] FCA 1684">first notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.7">citing from="[2007] FCA 1684">whether discretion to issue notice was validly exercised</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.8">citing from="[2007] FCA 1684">whether the statement of the conduct or acts or omissions of the person the subject of the request was sufficient to allow the minister to form the opinion which s 16(2)(a)(ii) of the extradition act 1988 (cth) required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.9">citing from="[2007] FCA 1684">dual criminality principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.10">citing from="[2007] FCA 1684">whether the minister needed to receive all the material provided by the extradition country in order validly to exercise his function in accordance with law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.11">citing from="[2007] FCA 1684">relief to be granted in circumstances where notice has been found to be invalid extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.12">citing from="[2007] FCA 1684">second notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.13">citing from="[2007] FCA 1684">where first notice has been found to be invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.14">citing from="[2007] FCA 1684">where detention of the person the subject of the request has become unlawful under ss 15 and 17 of the extradition act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.15">citing from="[2007] FCA 1684">whether minister had power to issue amended notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.16">citing from="[2007] FCA 1684">whether the minister for justice and customs can exercise powers of attorney-general under s 16 of the extradition act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.17">citing from="[2007] FCA 1684">whether the statement of the conduct or acts or omissions of the person the subject of the request was sufficient to allow the minister to form the opinion which s 16(2)(a)(ii) of the extradition act required extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.18">citing from="[2007] FCA 1684">where notice of receipt of extradition request has been found to be deficient in respect of certain paragraphs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.19">citing from="[2007] FCA 1684">whether the notice is wholly or partly invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.20">citing from="[2007] FCA 1684">possibility of severance of notice under s 46(2) of the acts interpretation act 1901 (cth) administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.21">citing from="[2007] FCA 1684">division of portfolio responsibilities between two ministers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.22">citing from="[2007] FCA 1684">effect of division</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.23">citing from="[2007] FCA 1684">whether one minister authorised to exercise powers conferred by statute on the other</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.24">citing from="[2007] FCA 1684">whether s 16 of the extradition act evinces a contrary intention for the purposes of s 19a(1) of the acts interpretation act  held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.25">citing from="[2007] FCA 1684">both notices deficient</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.26">citing from="[2007] FCA 1684">severance of portions of either notice not possible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.27">citing from="[2007] FCA 1684">both notices wholly invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp41.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1433">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp41.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1433">whether applicant put on notice of critical issues for determination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp41.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1433">whether s.425 breached</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp41.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1433">findings of fact open to the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp41.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1433">applicant notified of nature and extent of adverse issues.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp42.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1168">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp42.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1168">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp42.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1168">refusal of a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp42.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1168">applicant claiming persecution in nepal on several bases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp42.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1168">applicants' claims rejected</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp42.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1168">numerous jurisdictional errors alleged, including apprehended bias and breaches of ss.424 and 424a of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp42.6">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1168">no reviewable error found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp42.7">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1168">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp43.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 973">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp43.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 973">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp43.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 973">tribunal did not fail to deal with integers of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp43.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 973">incorrect finding of fact not jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp43.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 973">tribunal did not engage in speculation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp43.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 973">applicant's claim "speculative"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp43.6">citing from="[2007] FMCA 973">tribunal applied correct test according to refugees convention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp43.7">citing from="[2007] FMCA 973">adequate state protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp43.8">citing from="[2007] FMCA 973">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp43.9">citing from="[2007] FMCA 973">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp44.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 618">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp44.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 618">review of rrt decision − where the applicant gave evidence at the tribunal hearing that he obtained a passport by bribery − where the applicant gave evidence he was not apprehended upon leaving the country as he used a different name than the one known to the alleged persecutors − where the tribunal found the applicant's claims of persecution to be implausible on the basis of its conclusion the applicant could not have left the country if his claims of persecution were true − whether the tribunal complied with s.424a − where the tribunal did not investigate evidence provided by the applicant in response to its questioning or seek elaboration of the points made − whether the tribunal's reasons evidence apprehended bias − whether the tribunal failed to consider the evidence put forward by the applicant − whether the tribunal failed to exercise its inquisitorial function in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 461">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 461">application to review decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 461">whether tribunal failed to carry out review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 461">whether claim relating to persecution by reason of membership of a particular social group raised on the material before the tribunal.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp47.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 33">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp47.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 33">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp47.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 33">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp47.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 33">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp47.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 33">application for review of decision of refugee review tribunal affirming decision not to grant protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp47.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 33">citizen of nepal claiming fear of persecution from maoists because of her political activities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp47.6">citing from="[2007] FMCA 33">credibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp47.7">citing from="[2007] FMCA 33">whether the tribunal failed to comply with migration act 1958 (cth) s.414</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp47.8">citing from="[2007] FMCA 33">whether the tribunal failed to comply with migration act 1958 s.430</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp47.9">citing from="[2007] FMCA 33">whether the tribunal misconstrued and misapplied migration act 1958 s.91r (3)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp47.10">citing from="[2007] FMCA 33">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp47.11">citing from="[2007] FMCA 33">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp47.12">citing from="[2007] FMCA 33">whether tribunal failed to consider relevant material or relied on irrelevant material.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp48.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1378">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp48.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1378">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp48.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1378">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp48.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1378">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp48.4">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1378">application for review of decision of refugee review tribunal affirming decision not to grant protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp48.5">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1378">citizen of bangladesh claiming fear of persecution for reason of political opinion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp48.6">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1378">credibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp48.7">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1378">whether the authenticity of documents was in issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp48.8">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1378">whether there is an obligation on the tribunal to inquire</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp48.9">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1378">no reviewable error.practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp48.10">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1378">competency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp48.11">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1378">objection to competency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp48.12">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1378">notice of objection to competency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp48.13">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1378">where decision handed down on 23 january 1998 but application for review not filed until 15 march 2004.practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp48.14">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1378">delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp48.15">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1378">whether unwarrantable delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp48.16">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1378">total delay of two years and one month</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp48.17">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1378">even if jurisdictional error had been made out a delay in excess of two years with no explanation would disentitle the applicant to relief on discretionary grounds.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp49.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1224">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp49.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1224">review of decision by migration review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp49.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1224">alleged jurisdictional errors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp49.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1224">bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp49.4">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1224">application dismissed.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 237" id="cs0">And, as he later explained in his classic judgment in Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko Wallsend Ltd [1986] HCA 40 ; (1986) 162 CLR 24 at 41, in the absence of any statutory indication of the weight to be given to various considerations, it is generally for the decision-maker and not the Court to determine the appropriate weight to be given to the matters which are required to be taken into account in exercising a statutory power. Mason J said that the Court could set aside an administrative decision which had failed to give adequate weight to a relevant factor of great importance, or had given excessive weight to a relevant factor of no great importance, but the preferred ground on which that power was to be exercised was that the decision was "manifestly unreasonable". A person entrusted with a discretion must call his own attention to the matters which he is bound to consider: Peko-Wallsend 162 CLR at 39 per Mason J applying Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp [1947] EWCA Civ 1 ; [1948] 1 KB 223 at 228 per Lord Greene MR.

 [106] A decision-maker must give proper, genuine and realistic consideration to the merits of the case: Khan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1987] FCA 457 ; (1987) 14 ALD 291 at 292 per Gummow J; Zhang v Canterbury City Council [2001] NSWCA 167 ; (2001) 51 NSWLR 589 at 601 [62] where Spigelman CJ collected the authorities; Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf [2001] HCA 30 ; (2001) 206 CLR 323 at 367 [138] per Kirby J; NAJT v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCAFC 134 ; (2005) 147 FCR 51 at 92-93 [212] per Madgwick J, 96 [229] per Conti J; SZEJF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 724 at [39] , [60] where I applied this principle. In Tickner v Chapman (1995) 57 FCR 451 at 462C-D, Black CJ said that where a decision-maker was required to consider material, the process of consideration "... involves an active intellectual process" directed at the nominated subject-matter: see too per Burchett J at 476F-477E, per Kiefel J at 495F-G and Tobacco Institute of Australia v National Health  Medical Research Council (1996) 71 FCR 265 at 277G per Finn J; Australian Retailers Association 148 FCR at 577 [526] per Weinberg J.

 [107] Where a decision-maker must consider matters prescribed by law, generally, he or she cannot jettison or ignore some of those factors or give them cursory consideration only in order to put them to one side: East Australian Pipeline Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2007] HCA 44 ; (2007) 233 CLR 229 at 244 [52] per Gleeson CJ, Heydon and Crennan JJ.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2011] FMCA 89" id="cs1">The applicant's position is that the Tribunal's statutory duty is to review the delegate's decision (s.414 of the Act and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZIAI [2009] HCA 39 ; (2009) 83 ALJR 1123 ; (2009) 259 ALR 429 ; (2009) 111 ALD 15) , and that this requires consideration of the claims and evidence. The relevant evidence (the UNESCO letters) was critical to the applicant's claim and the failure to consider the evidence, that is to give it proper, genuine and realistic consideration, amounts to a failure to review and therefore jurisdictional error. The applicant relied on SZEJF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 724 at [38] to [39] and [59]. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2011] FMCA 4" id="cs2">The applicant's submissions in relation to grounds 1 and 2 depend essentially upon the decision of the Federal Court in SZEJF v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 724 and SZJSS v Minister for Immigration [2009] FCA 1577 at [38] - [51]. In relation to ground 3, the applicant contends that: In forming the view that there is not a real chance that the applicant will be seriously harmed by reason of his profile as a student politician, the RRT did not consider the cumulative impact of the applicant's claims and failed to direct its mind to the appropriate tests provided in Chan v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379 where the High Court established that a fear of persecution will be well-founded if there is a real chance that it will occur. This test was expressed by the High Court as follows: (per Toohey J at 407) (A real chance) discounts what is remote or insubstantial; (per Dawson J at 398) A real chance is one that is not remote, regardless of whether it is less or more than 50 per cent; (per McHugh J at 429) An applicant for refugee status may have a well-founded fear of persecution even though there is only a 10 per cent chance that he will be ... persecuted... A far-fetched possibility of persecution must be excluded. The RRT made findings that the applicant is a member of particular social political groups in Nepal that according to the country information are subject persecution by the Maoists and the affiliated Youth Communist League. The RRT noted the volatile circumstances currently experienced in Nepal including the lack of capacity of the various enforcement agencies to ensure security and notwithstanding stated: "while the political circumstances in Nepal remain volatile, the Nepali Congress Party is the main party in the ruling coalition, and the government continues to function despite attacks on people by groups such as the YCL. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance that the applicant will be seriously harmed because he is a long-term supporter of the ruling congress Party, or because of his activities in the Congress Party student union, even though he, along with the rest of the population in Nepal, may be adversely affected by the prevailing political uncertainty. " [76] It is respectfully submitted that such conclusion is irrational in the face of the RRT's finding in relation to the applicant's membership to particular social political groups, his political belief and opinions, and the objective events of persecution in Nepal such that the decision which in effect is that the risk of the applicant being persecuted is far-fetched or remote is manifestly unreasonable and the constituted jurisdictional error. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 53" id="cs3">In SZJSS Rares J held (at 280 [43]) that the Tribunal's statement that it gave "no weight" to letters corroborating the appellants' claims in the circumstances of that case was inconsistent with "any rational, reasonable approach to the evaluation of that evidence"; and, because of this, his Honour concluded that the Tribunal "was not genuinely considering the appellants' claims as corroborated by the letters on the material before it". His Honour explained (at 280-1 [43]) that:

 [The Tribunal] used the formula of giving material "no weight" as a basis on which it might ignore probative, relevant and highly supportive material corroborating the factual basis of the fears which the husband claimed. It did this simply as a basis for putting the evidence to one side, having said that it had looked at it. In Telstra Corporation Limited v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2008] FCA 1758 ; (2008) 176 FCR 153 at 1818-182 [106] - [107] (approved in Telstra Corporation Ltd v Australian Competition Tribunal [2009] FCAFC 23 ; (2009) 175 FCR 201 at 24 [242 [267] per Jacobson, Lander and Foster JJ and Lafu v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCAFC 140 at [47] per Lingren, Foster JJ and myself) I said:

 A decision-maker must give proper, genuine and realistic consideration to the merits of the case: Khan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1987] FCA 457 ; (1987) 14 ALD 291 at 292 per Gummow J; Zhang v Canterbury City Council [2001] NSWCA 167 ; (2001) 51 NSWLR 589 at 601 [62] where Spigelman CJ collected the authorities; Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf [2001] HCA 30 ; (2001) 206 CLR 323 at 367 [138] per Kirby J; NAJT v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCAFC 134 ; [2005] FCAFC 134 ; (2005) 147 FCR 51 at 92-93 [212] per Madgwick J, 96 [229] per Conti J; SZEJF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 724 at [39] , [60] where I applied this principle. In Tickner v Chapman (1995) 57 FCR 451 at 462C-D, Black CJ said that where a decision-maker was required to consider material, the process of consideration "... involves an active intellectual process" directed at the nominated subject-matter: see too per Burchett J at 476F-477E, per Kiefel J at 495F-G and Tobacco Institute of Australia v National Health  Medical Research Council (1996) 71 FCR 265 at 277G per Finn J; Australian Retailers Association 148 FCR at 577 [526] per Weinberg J.

 Where a decision-maker must consider matters prescribed by law, generally, he or she cannot jettison or ignore some of those factors or give them cursory consideration only in order to put them to one side: East Australian Pipeline Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2007) 233 CLR 229 at 244 [52] per Gleeson CJ, Heydon and Crennan JJ. As Gummow and Hayne JJ, in concurring observed ( East Australian Pipeline 233 CLR at 256 [102]):

 It was not enough for the ACCC to say in its final determination that it had considered those matters in the sense of having looked at but discarded them.

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 670" id="cs4">The applicant argues that the Tribunal did not give proper, genuine and realistic consideration to his case in regard to his submissions concerning genuine effort or in the exercise by the Tribunal of its residual discretion. The respondent does not accept that this formulation is a matter which discloses jurisdictional error. The applicant relies on what fell from Gleeson CJ in NAIS v Minister for Immigration [2005] HCA 77 and the views expressed by Rares J in SZEJF v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 724 and his Honour's iteration of those views in SZGUR v Minister for Immigration [2010] FCA 171 at [36] . But that case is on appeal to the High Court of Australia. Whilst it cannot be gainsaid that the Tribunal is required to give proper, genuine and realistic consideration to the matters that come before it, this seems to me to be implicit in the requirements of s.425 of the Act.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 489" id="cs5">This is not a situation of the kind to which Mason J referred in Minister of Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Limited [1986] HCA 40 ; (1986) 162 CLR 24 at [40] where the factor was so "insignificant that failure to take it into account could not have materially affected the decision. " The failure to do so led the Tribunal into error and that error had an adverse affect on the Tribunal's assessment of the first appellant's credibility. The Tribunal failed to have regard to material evidence and as the Tribunal's own comments show that initial error was not corrected..." The applicant also placed reliance on the views expressed by Rares J in SZEJF v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 724 which was a case involving the Tribunal's finding of implausibility in relation to certain newspaper articles. At [59] his Honour said: "I am of opinion that by the way in which it dismissed the objective evidence provided in the two newspaper articles, the tribunal ignored relevant material (the newspaper articles) and relied on irrelevant material (namely its bare, unsupported assertions that the objective facts demonstrated in the newspaper articles were 'somewhat implausible' and gave 'no evidence' of the Jirga's activities). That was a jurisdictional error: see Craig v South Australia [1995] HCA 58 ; (1995) 184 CLR 163 at 179; Secretary of State for Education and Science v Thameside Metropolitan Borough Council [1976] UKHL 6 ; [1977] AC 1014 at 1047D-E; Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Rajamanikkam [2002] HCA 32 ; (2002) 210 CLR 222 at 233 [27] , 241 [58], 250 [97] and SZGDB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 431 at [33] - [38] .</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1577" id="cs6">It used the formula of giving material "no weight" as a basis on which it might ignore probative, relevant and highly supportive material corroborating the factual basis of the fears which the husband claimed. It did this simply as a basis for putting the evidence to one side, having said that it had looked at it. In Telstra Corporation Limited v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2008] FCA 1758 ; (2008) 176 FCR 153 at 181-182 [106] - [107] (approved in Telstra Corporation Ltd v Australian Competition Tribunal [2009] FCAFC 23 ; (2009) 175 FCR 201 at 242 [267] per Jacobson, Lander and Foster JJ and Lafu v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCAFC 140 at [47] per Lindgren, Foster JJ and myself) I said:

 " A decision-maker must give proper, genuine and realistic consideration to the merits of the case: Khan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1987] FCA 457 ; (1987) 14 ALD 291 at 292 per Gummow J; Zhang v Canterbury City Council [2001] NSWCA 167 ; (2001) 51 NSWLR 589 at [62] where Spigelman CJ collected the authorities; Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf [2001] HCA 30 ; (2001) 206 CLR 323 at [138] per Kirby J; NAJT v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCAFC 134 ; (2005) 147 FCR 51 at [212] per Madgwick J, [229] per Conti J; SZEJF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 724 at [39], [60] where I applied this principle. In Tickner v Chapman (1995) 57 FCR 451 at 462C-D, Black CJ said that where a decision-maker was required to consider material, the process of consideration "involves an active intellectual process" directed at the nominated subject-matter: see too per Burchett J at 476F-477E, per Kiefel J at 495F-G and Tobacco Institute of Australia v National Health  Medical Research Council (1996) 71 FCR 265 at 277G per Finn J; Australian Retailers Association [2005] FCA 1707 ; 148 FCR 446 at [526] per Weinberg J.

 Where a decision-maker must consider matters prescribed by law, generally, he or she cannot jettison or ignore some of those factors or give them cursory consideration only in order to put them to one side: East Australian Pipeline Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2007] HCA 44 ; (2007) 233 CLR 229 at [52] per Gleeson CJ, Heydon and Crennan JJ.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1067" id="cs7">The appellant submits that the Tribunal did not give proper, genuine and realistic consideration to the claimed link between the police and CPI(M). The Tribunal addressed the issue and stated its reasons for rejecting the appellant's allegation of a link. I do not think there is any substance in this submission, and therefore I do not need to address the question of the proper description of the Tribunal's obligation under s 414 of the Act to review the decision (see NABE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (No 2) [2004] FCAFC 263 ; (2004) 144 FCR 1 at 16 [50] - [51]; SZEJF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 724 at [39] per Rares J). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 966" id="cs8">Generally, the fact that the Tribunal has addressed an issue may be inferred from its reasons, however in this case I am not satisfied that the Tribunal has addressed the visa applicant's claimed reason for visiting Australia based on the statements to which my attention has been directed by Counsel. Procedural fairness requires the tribunal to give real consideration to the claim of the visa applicant and the merits of his case, including his claimed reason for visiting Australia. That failure to do so constitutes a denial of natural justice --- and a jurisdictional defect infecting the decision of the Tribunal --- is clear from such cases as Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2003) 197 ALR 389 at 394, 406-407, 408 , Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf [2001] HCA 30 ; (2001) 206 CLR 323 at 367 per Kirby J, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v Maltsin [2005] FCAFC 118 at [38] , SZEJF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2006) FCA 724 at [38] - [39]. That the Tribunal did not consider the claimed reason of the visa applicant for visiting Australia, but considered the application before it exclusively in light of the circumstances of the group into which the Tribunal categorised the visa applicant --- namely Ahmadi Muslims from Pakistan --- is evident from the conduct of the hearing and the Tribunal's findings. In particular I note the following: the consideration by the Tribunal of the fact that the appellant had claimed to be at risk of persecution because she was an Ahmadi Muslim (at [23]) and that the visa applicant was also an Ahmadi Muslim (at [22]); the fact that, during the proceedings before the Tribunal, the Tribunal asked the appellant "why her son, as an Ahmadi, would not seek asylum should he come to Australia" (at [32]); the fact that, during questioning of the visa applicant by telephone, it appears that the Tribunal focussed almost exclusively on the fact that the visa applicant was an Ahmadi Muslim, which suggested that the visa applicant faced persecution in Pakistan.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 583" id="cs9">Third, in my view, having regard to the Tribunal's reasons for decision, and on a plain reading of its decision record, there is no suggestion that the Tribunal failed to undertake a "proper, genuine and realistic consideration [of] the merits of the case" ( SZEJF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 724 at [39] , per Rares J). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 361" id="cs10">So on a plain reading of the Tribunal's decision record, there is no suggestion in this case that the Tribunal failed to undertake "a proper genuine and realistic consideration [of] the merits of the case": SZEJF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 724 at [39] per Rares J (" SZEFJ "). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 233" id="cs11">First, the Tribunal is not required in its written reasons to deal with every piece of evidence that might be thought to be relevant: SZEHN v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1389 , per Lindgren J and authorities there cited, Singh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 1113. Second, the Tribunal is not required to make findings on each piece of evidence before it, nor to refer to each individual piece of evidence to demonstrate that it has taken into account the fact or facts to which the evidence refers: Minister of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 206 CLR 323 ; [2001] HCA 30 at [68] , [73]-[74] and [91], Applicant A169/2003 v Minister of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCAFC 8 at [24] , WAEE v Minister of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2003) 75 ALD 630 ; [2003] FCAFC 184 at [47] , Paul v Minister of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2001) 113 FCR 396 ; [2001] FCA 1196. Third, in my view, having regard to the Tribunal's reasons for decision, and on a plain reading of it, there is no suggestion that the Tribunal failed to undertake a "proper, genuine and realistic consideration [of] the merits of the case": SZEJF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 724 at [39] , per Rares J. Further, as the Minister submits, that in the circumstances of this case the Tribunal was not required to make further enquiries or seek further information in relation to the applicants' father's claimed support of the SDL, or even of the Reconciliation Bill. It is for an applicant to put forward his or her case, and to be given a reasonable opportunity to provide relevant material.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1690" id="cs12">For the reasons given above I am unable to say the Tribunal fell into jurisdictional error in the manner in which it reached its decision in this case. The Court does have some concern that so much of the decision was based upon the interview with the Department and was not the subject of direct questioning by the Tribunal. However, it has not been suggested in the application that the Tribunal had merely adopted the delegate's reasoning holus bolus and so failed to give "genuine and real consideration to the material before it"; SZEJF v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 724 at [55] . Even if it had been I do not think I could have come to such a conclusion because of the nature of the questions that were asked as evidenced by the transcript and the opportunity provided by the Tribunal in the s.424A letter for the applicant to deal with the concerns raised in the DIAC decision and interview. I dismiss the application. I order that the applicant pays the respondent's costs which I assess in the sum of $4,500.00.
 I certify that the preceding twelve (12) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Raphael FM.

 Associate:

Date:

 AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
 URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FMCA/2008/1690.html

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1758" id="cs13">106 A decision-maker must give proper, genuine and realistic consideration to the merits of the case: Khan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1987] FCA 457 ; (1987) 14 ALD 291 at 292 per Gummow J; Zhang v Canterbury City Council [2001] NSWCA 167 ; (2001) 51 NSWLR 589 at 601 [62] where Spigelman CJ collected the authorities; Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf [2001] HCA 30 ; (2001) 206 CLR 323 at 367 [138] per Kirby J; NAJT v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCAFC 134 ; (2005) 147 FCR 51 at 92-93 [212] per Madgwick J, 96 [229] per Conti J; SZEJF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 724 at [39] , [60] where I applied this principle. In Tickner v Chapman (1995) 57 FCR 451 at 462C-D, Black CJ said that where a decision-maker was required to consider material, the process of consideration "... involves an active intellectual process" directed at the nominated subject-matter: see too per Burchett J at 476F-477E, per Kiefel J at 495F-G and Tobacco Institute of Australia v National Health  Medical Research Council (1996) 71 FCR 265 at 277G per Finn J; Australian Retailers Association 148 FCR at 577 [526] per Weinberg J.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1437" id="cs14"/>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 974" id="cs15">In SZEJF v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 724 at [37] - [41] , Rares J stated: 37 It is important to recognize that the tribunal is the body created by the Parliament to conduct the review on the merits of decisions by the Minister or his or her delegate. The role of the court in proceedings such as this is to review whether in reaching its decision, the tribunal adhered to or departed from the procedure for the conduct of the review laid down in the Act or, to the extent that s 422B and Div 4 Pt 7 of the Act do not exclude them, the principles of common law. Nonetheless, as Brennan J observed in Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550 at 662: `[t]he distinction between method and merits is sometimes elusive.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 911" id="cs16">53 The function of a court is to discern whether the tribunal has arrived at its decision on the merits by a procedure authorised by, and in conformity with, the enactment which conferred the power: Applicant VEAL of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] HCA 72 ; (2005) 225 CLR 88 at 95-96 [14] - [16]; SZEJF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 724 at [37] - [41] per myself.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 173" id="cs17">

13 The appellant submitted that his Honour was too generous to the Tribunal. While it is true that the Tribunal has exposed its reasoning process as to why it considered the appellant's account to be implausible, the appellant submitted that it is this very reasoning process which is flawed. The Tribunal reasoned that it was not plausible for the appellant to escape the attention of the police by giving them an address that was 30 kilometres distant from where he actually lived. However, the appellant's submission is that the explanation was not implausible. The Tribunal simply asserted that it was and cited no evidence to support the reasoning. The appellant argued that to simply make an assertion to support a finding which does not otherwise flow from the material is simply not a sufficient basis: SZEJF v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 724 at [59] ; Tran v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1229 at [17] . Also, the test in SZAPC v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 995 was complied with. It cannot be said that the Tribunal's decision is arbitrary; its finding was made on logical grounds and on the material before it. The decision in SZEJF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 724 was referred to, in particular the passage in [59] that refers to the Tribunal's "bare, unsupported assertions that objective facts...were 'somewhat implausible'". In the current case, the finding of the Tribunal was properly open to it on the material before it. It did not reach its conclusion on bare unsupported assertions ...</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 149" id="cs18">7 In conducting its " review ", the Tribunal is conducting an " inquisitorial hearing ": Re Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Applicant S154/2002 [2003] HCA 60 at [58] , [2003] HCA 60 ; 201 ALR 437 at 451. Such an obligation is different to that discharged by superior courts and may be more onerous: Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs v SGLB [2004] HCA 32 at [73] , 207 ALR 12 at 33. Albeit in dissent as to the ultimate conclusion, the following observations of Kirby J are apposite:

 ...the Tribunal is not a body engaged in purely adversarial proceedings. It operates according to inquisitorial procedures. This feature of the Tribunal's operation casts obligations upon it that are different from, and in some respects more onerous than, those applicable to more traditional bodies acting according to the more passive decision-making virtues of adversarial trial.

 This " inquisitorial " nature of the hearing is emphasised by s 424(1) and the conferral upon the Tribunal of power to " get any information that it considers relevant ". See also SAAP v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2005] HCA 24 at [111] ---[123] [2005] HCA 24 ; , 228 CLR 294 at 330---3 per Gummow J. As correctly noted by the Federal Magistrate, the task of the Tribunal was to undertake a " proper, genuine and realistic consideration [of] the merits of the case ": SZEJF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 724 at [39] per Rares J. The task of this Court is to ensure that any decision of the Tribunal is a decision authorised by the 1958 Act; the task of this Court is not to review the merits of the decision reached: Cf Applicant VEAL of 2002 v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2005] HCA 72 at [16] , [2005] HCA 72 ; 222 ALR 411 at 416 (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne and Heydon JJ).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 1684" id="cs19">93 A decision-maker must give proper, genuine and realistic consideration to the merits of the case: Khan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1987] FCA 457 ; (1987) 14 ALD 291 at 292 per Gummow J; Zhang v Canterbury City Council [2001] NSWCA 167 ; (2001) 51 NSWLR 589 at 601 [62] where Spigelman CJ collected the authorities; Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf [2001] HCA 30 ; (2001) 206 CLR 323 at 367 [138] per Kirby J; NAJT v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCAFC 134 ; (2005) 147 FCR 51 at 92-93 [212] per Madgwick J, 96 [229] per Conti J; SZEJF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 724 at [39] , [60] where I applied this principle. In Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [1976] UKHL 6 ; [1977] AC 1014 at 1047D-E Lord Wilberforce construed a statutory power in the 'subjective form' - 'if the Secretary of State is satisfied' - as raising two matters capable of review by the Court. First, where a judgment is to be made by the repository of a power, if the statute requires there to be some facts upon which the judgment is to be exercised, the Court may enquire into whether those facts exist. The evaluation of the facts is for the repository of the power alone, but his Lordship continued:

 '... the Court must inquire whether those facts exist, and have been taken into account, whether the judgment has been made upon a proper self-direction as to those facts, whether the judgment has not been made upon other facts which ought not to have been taken into account. If these requirements are not met, then the exercise of judgment, however bona fide it may be, becomes capable of challenge ...'

 (See too Attorney-General v Reynolds [1980] AC 637 at 657G-659C per Lord Salmon giving the advice of the Judicial Committee. )</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 1433" id="cs20">21. The decision in SZEJF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 724 was referred to, in particular the passage in [59] that refers to the Tribunal's "bare, unsupported assertions that objective facts...were 'somewhat implausible'". In the current case, the finding of the Tribunal was properly open to it on the material before it. It did not reach its conclusion on bare unsupported assertions. The Tribunal set out its reasoning process at CB 170.2.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 1168" id="cs21">
 9. The applicants rely upon SZEJF v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 724 at [38] and [39] per Rares J and assert that the Tribunal cannot "act perfunctorily" and must give "proper genuine and realistic consideration to the merits of the case". I accept the principle espoused but do not accept that the Tribunal erred in that manner.  Grounds 2 and 7 in the application were not pressed but the other grounds are pressed [2] . The applicants' written submissions are relevantly as follows:

 Breach of section 414 Migration Act 1958
 The Migration Act provides at s. 414(1) that if a valid application is made under section 412 for review of an RRT --- reviewable decision, the Tribunal must review the decision. Rares J. in SZEJF v MIMIA [2006] FCA 724 (9 June 2006) stated at para 38 'In exercising its function of conducting a review under s.414(1) of the Act the tribunal cannot simply act perfunctorily. Nor can it shut its ears or eyes so as to ignore, consciously or inadvertently, the claims made by the applicant for review'. At para 39 his Honour stated: 'at the conclusion of its review the tribunal must give "proper, genuine and realistic consideration to the merits of the case"'.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 973" id="cs22">It is also made with reference to SZEJF v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 724 (" SZEJF ") per Rares J, in particular at [46]---[53].</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 618" id="cs23">Further, whilst the Tribunal is under no obligation to investigate, it has a duty to consider each claim made by the applicant and that consideration must be genuine: the "function of an administrative decision-maker is to give genuine and real consideration to the material before it" : SZEJF v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 724 per Rares J at [55]. In SZEJF the applicant successfully argued the Tribunal's dismissal of evidence given in support of a claim of persecution was not supported by a reasoning process which addressed the claim made. His Honour stated at [38]: "In exercising its function of conducting a review of a decision under s 414(1) of the Act, the tribunal cannot simply act perfunctorily.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 461" id="cs24">After the first respondent filed supplementary submissions, the applicant conceded that there was no general duty on the Tribunal to make enquiries, but asserted that the manner in which the Tribunal made its decision about whether the enemy property law applied to Buddhists (by considering the position in relation to Hindus) was " so devoid of any plausible justification that no reasonable person could have taken this course " (see Prasad v MIEA [1985] FCA 47 ; (1985) 6 FCR 155 at 169 per Wilcox J and see SZEJF v MIMA [2006] FCA 724 at [53] per Rares J).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 312" id="cs25">16 In relation to the second ground of appeal, the Minister acknowledged that as a general proposition, the Tribunal is obliged to give ' proper, genuine and realistic consideration to the merits of the case ' that it is reviewing, and that a failure to meet such an obligation will give rise to a jurisdictional error: SZEJF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 724 at [39] . However the Tribunal below plainly set out in its decision the nature of the appellant's claims and the limited information in support of those claims which had been provided by the appellant. I agree with the Minister's contention that there is nothing in the Tribunal's reasons for decision to suggest that the Tribunal failed to give proper, genuine and realistic consideration to the merits of the appellant's application for review of the decision of the Minister's delegate.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 33" id="cs26">He referred the court to the decision in SZEJF v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 724 at [38] - [40], where Rares J held that a failure to give proper reasons for its decision was a failure by the Tribunal to assess the appellant's case in accordance with law.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 1378" id="cs27">In a further submission, counsel for the applicant drew the court's attention to the decision of Rares J in SZEJF v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 724 , a decision on appeal from the Federal Magistrates Court.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 1224" id="cs28">In this regard the Applicant referred to SZEJF v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 724 (" SZEJF ").</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 27 Evidence on appeal</title>
<title id="l2">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l3">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 91R Persecution</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>