Kadiroglu, Kemal & Ors v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1998] FCA 1656

Kadiroglu, Kemal & Ors v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1998] FCA 1656

The Tribunal considered each of the applicants' claims and their cumulative effect, and its conclusions that the discrimination, harassment, employment and school difficulties, threats, and loss of farming land were not sufficiently serious to establish persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution were open to it on the facts. The Tribunal did not misconceive the legal notion of persecution and no reviewable error was demonstrated.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 December 1998
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Refusing Protection Visas / Federal Court Decision on Application
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Status' 'well Founded Fear of Persecution' 'judicial Review' 'reviewable Error']
['migration'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Status' 'well Founded Fear of Persecution' 'judicial Review' 'reviewable Error']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Judicial Review of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Refusing Protection Visas / Federal Court Decision on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Refugee Review Tribunal misconceived what is comprehended by the notion of persecution.' 'Whether the Tribunal incorrectly applied the law to the facts as found within Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 476(1)(e).' "Whether the Tribunal's conclusions that the applicants did not have a well-founded fear of persecution were reasonably open to it."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal considered each of the applicants' claims and their cumulative effect, and its conclusions that the discrimination, harassment, employment and school difficulties, threats, and loss of farming land were not sufficiently serious to establish persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution were open to it on the facts. The Tribunal did not misconceive the legal notion of persecution and no reviewable error was demonstrated.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.' "The applicants pay the respondent's costs."]