Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Epeabaka

(1999) 160 ALR 543; [1999] FCA 1

Federal Court of Australia

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Error of law
4. › Illogicality in reasoning
5. › Whether want of logic in drawing inference of fact constitutes error of law
6. › Whether failure to rationally consider probative evidence is error of law
1. Immigration
2. › Refugees
3. › Refugee Review Tribunal
4. › Credibility findings
5. › Whether Tribunal's reasoning illogical and self-contradictory
6. › Whether credibility concerns about travel account remained relevant after identity established
7. › Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 476
1. Immigration
2. › Refugees
3. › Standard of proof
4. › Fact-finding by administrative tribunals
5. › Whether civil standard of proof applies to Tribunal fact-finding in refugee cases
6. › Qualification for matters where nature of decision makes civil standard inappropriate
1. Evidence
2. › Standard of proof
3. › Administrative tribunals
4. › Civil standard as guide in administrative decision-making
5. › Qualification for asylum seeker claims

Quick Take

Want of logic in a tribunal's reasoning does not of itself constitute an error of law; the inference need only be 'reasonably open' on the material. A failure to rationally consider probative evidence, while different from a simple mistake of fact, does not of itself amount to a mistake of law. In refugee cases, the civil standard of proof is an appropriate guide for fact-finding except where the nature of the decision makes it inappropriate, such as when assessing future risks of persecution.