Sunarso v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 57

Sunarso v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 57

The application was dismissed because the Tribunal made no reviewable error. Applying Wu Shan Liang, the Tribunal's reasons were not to be read minutely to find contradictions; its references to fears and possibilities did not amount to findings of a real chance of persecution. The Tribunal sufficiently dealt with the ability of the Indonesian state to protect Chinese Indonesians, at least in Jakarta, and did not substitute a different test for the Convention test. There was no duty to deal with an employment discrimination claim because the material relied on did not fairly support such a claim for the applicant. The Tribunal also had no duty to deal with separate Convention claims...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 February 2000
Procedural Posture
Migration Application for Judicial Review of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of Protection Visas / Federal Court Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visas' 'well Founded Fear of Persecution' 'national Protection' 'judicial Review of Administrative Reasons' 'transitional Migration Legislation' 'delegated Legislation' 'family Unit Claims']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'refugee Law'] ['protection Visas' 'well Founded Fear of Persecution' 'national Protection' 'judicial Review of Administrative Reasons' 'transitional Migration Legislation' 'delegated Legislation' 'family Unit Claims']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Migration Application for Judicial Review of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of Protection Visas / Federal Court Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Tribunal's findings about fear among Chinese Indonesians contradicted its conclusion that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason." 'Whether the Tribunal committed reviewable error by not expressly finding that the Indonesian government had the ability, as distinct from willingness, to protect Chinese Indonesians.' 'Whether the Tribunal impermissibly substituted a national protection test for the Convention test of well-founded fear of persecution.' 'Whether the Tribunal was required to deal with a claimed issue of employment discrimination independent of the May 1998 riots.' "Whether the Tribunal was required to deal with the daughter's claimed educational difficulties as a separate claim to refugee status." "Whether s 39 of the Migration Reform Act 1992 (Cth), as amended, made Migration Regulations Sch 2 cl 866.211 applicable to the applicant's refugee status application as if it were an application for protection visas."]

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the Tribunal made no reviewable error. Applying Wu Shan Liang, the Tribunal's reasons were not to be read minutely to find contradictions; its references to fears and possibilities did not amount to findings of a real chance of persecution. The Tribunal sufficiently dealt with the ability of the Indonesian state to protect Chinese Indonesians, at least in Jakarta, and did not substitute a different test for the Convention test. There was no duty to deal with an employment discrimination claim because the material relied on did not fairly support such a claim for the applicant. The Tribunal also had no duty to deal with separate Convention claims...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

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