Prahastono, Ibnu v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1997] FCA 586

Prahastono, Ibnu v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1997] FCA 586

The application failed because the Tribunal did not adopt an erroneous legal test for persecution, was entitled to treat the applicant's experiences as discrimination, harassment and ostracism that did not individually or cumulatively reach the level of persecution, and was not required to treat the applicant's subjective fear as converting non-persecutory conduct into persecution. The conclusion was open to the Tribunal and no reviewable error of law was shown.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 July 1997
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Refusing a Protection Visa / Application to the Federal Court on Appeal From the Refugee Review Tribunal
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Status' 'persecution' 'discrimination in Employment and Education' 'well Founded Fear' 'judicial Review of Tribunal Decisions']
['immigration' 'administrative Law' 'refugee Law'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Status' 'persecution' 'discrimination in Employment and Education' 'well Founded Fear' 'judicial Review of Tribunal Decisions']

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

Judicial Review of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Refusing a Protection Visa / Application to the Federal Court on Appeal From the Refugee Review Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal adopted the wrong legal test for persecution by treating discrimination in employment and education as insufficient unless it breached fundamental rights or made employment extremely difficult, dangerous or grossly out of keeping with qualifications.' "Whether the Tribunal failed to take into account the cumulative effect of discriminatory incidents on the applicant's mind and whether they produced apprehension and insecurity about his future existence." 'Whether it was open to the Tribunal to conclude that the discrimination, harassment and ostracism experienced by the applicant and his family did not amount to persecution.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application failed because the Tribunal did not adopt an erroneous legal test for persecution, was entitled to treat the applicant's experiences as discrimination, harassment and ostracism that did not individually or cumulatively reach the level of persecution, and was not required to treat the applicant's subjective fear as converting non-persecutory conduct into persecution. The conclusion was open to the Tribunal and no reviewable error of law was shown.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

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