Buksh v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1504

Buksh v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1504

The RRT did not make an error of law under s 476(1)(e). Country information about Fiji's poor economy and employment conditions did not establish a real chance of Convention persecution, because bad economic conditions alone are not persecution and the material did not show economic discrimination by the Fijian government or by others whom the government was unable or unwilling to control, nor a Convention reason for such harm. In any event, even if an inference of a real chance of persecution were reasonably open, the RRT did not incorrectly apply the law to the facts as found unless it was bound to draw that inference, which was not shown.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Application for Review of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Under Migration Act 1958 (cth) S 476(1)(e) / Final Judgment on Amended Application for Review After the RRT Affirmed a Delegate's Refusal to Grant Protection Visas
Outcome
The amended application for review was dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'well Founded Fear of Persecution' 'economic Disadvantage' 'incorrect Application of Law to Facts as Found' 'convention Reason']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'refugee Law'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'well Founded Fear of Persecution' 'economic Disadvantage' 'incorrect Application of Law to Facts as Found' 'convention Reason']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

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

Procedural Posture

Application for Review of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Under Migration Act 1958 (cth) S 476(1)(e) / Final Judgment on Amended Application for Review After the RRT Affirmed a Delegate's Refusal to Grant Protection Visas

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the RRT made an error of law under Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 476(1)(e) by incorrectly applying the law to the facts as found.' 'Whether a real chance of significant economic detriment or disadvantage in Fiji would amount to persecution within the meaning of the Refugees Convention.' "Whether the RRT erred by failing to draw an inference said to be reasonably open from country information about Fiji's economy." 'Whether a merely reasonably open ultimate inference that the applicant would be persecuted is sufficient to establish an incorrect application of law to facts as found.']

Ratio Decidendi

The RRT did not make an error of law under s 476(1)(e). Country information about Fiji's poor economy and employment conditions did not establish a real chance of Convention persecution, because bad economic conditions alone are not persecution and the material did not show economic discrimination by the Fijian government or by others whom the government was unable or unwilling to control, nor a Convention reason for such harm. In any event, even if an inference of a real chance of persecution were reasonably open, the RRT did not incorrectly apply the law to the facts as found unless it was bound to draw that inference, which was not shown.

Court Disposition

The amended application for review was dismissed with costs.

Orders

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