Case: WAEE v Minister for Immigration &amp; Multicultural &amp; Indigenous Affairs (2003) 75 ALD 630
Outcome: considered
The appellant also claimed that the Tribunal made findings of fact unsupported by the evidence. In particular, the appellant claims that the Tribunal did not give proper consideration to the evidence before it and did not make correct findings of fact based on the evidence. However, the Tribunal is not obliged to deal with in its reasons every piece of evidence submitted by the appellant. In WAEE v Minister for Immigration &amp; Multicultural &amp; Indigenous Affairs (2003) 75 ALD 630, the Full Federal Court discussed a number of decisions of the Refugee Review Tribunal and stated at [46]-[47] that: It is plainly not necessary for the Tribunal to refer to every piece of evidence and every contention made by an applicant in its written reasons. It may be that some evidence is irrelevant to the criteria and some contentions misconceived. Moreover, there is a distinction between the Tribunal failing to advert to evidence which, if accepted, might have led it to make a different finding of fact (cf Minister for Immigration &amp; Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf [2001] HCA 30 ; (2001) 206 CLR 323 at [87] - [97] ) and a failure by the Tribunal to address a contention which, if accepted, might establish that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason.... Nevertheless, it is an administrative body and not a court and its reasons are not to be scrutinised 'with an eye keenly attuned to error'. Nor is it necessarily required to provide reasons of the kind that might be expected of a court of law. The inference that the Tribunal has failed to consider an issue may be drawn from its failure to expressly deal with that issue in its reasons. But that is an inference not too readily to be drawn where the reasons are otherwise comprehensive and the issue has at least been identified at some point. It may be that it is unnecessary to make a finding on a particular matter because it is subsumed in findings of greater generality or because there is a factual premise upon which a contention rests which has been rejected. Where however there is an issue raised by the evidence advanced on behalf of an applicant and contentions made by the applicant and that issue, if resolved one way, would be dispositive of the Tribunal's review of the delegate's decision, a failure to deal with it in the published reasons may raise a strong inference that it has been overlooked. 40 The claim arises specifically in the context of the Tribunal's consideration of the circumstances prescribed by subreg 1.15A(3). However, an analysis of the Tribunal's findings shows that the Tribunal did consider all the material evidence before it and reveals no error law. 41 The appellant sought to impugn the Tribunal's consideration of the evidence about the financial aspects of his relationship with the sponsor. The appellant claimed that the Tribunal solely considered the evidence of the joint bank account and did not take into account the evidence of the joint utilities bills which post-date the time of the visa application. The appellant further claims that, given the appellant and the sponsor were married only 4 days before the date of the visa application, it was not realistic to expect joint financial commitment immediately, or at the time of the application.