Ram v The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and the Refugee Review Tribunal [1995] FCA 433
The appellant did not establish that he was persecuted for reasons of membership of a particular social group; rather, he was targeted individually based on his personal wealth. The evidence did not support the existence of a recognised social group defined solely by wealth or return from abroad with money. Thus, he did not satisfy the requirements of the Convention as incorporated in Australian law.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 27 June 1995
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / On Appeal From a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- ['refugee Status' "interpretation of 'particular Social Group'" 'persecution Under the Migration Act 1958']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the appellant was a refugee under s.4 of the Migration Act 1958 by reason of membership of a particular social group' "Whether 'wealthy Sikhs' or 'villagers returned to the Punjab from a foreign country with money' formed a particular social group for the purposes of the Convention"]
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant did not establish that he was persecuted for reasons of membership of a particular social group; rather, he was targeted individually based on his personal wealth. The evidence did not support the existence of a recognised social group defined solely by wealth or return from abroad with money. Thus, he did not satisfy the requirements of the Convention as incorporated in Australian law.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs
Orders
- ['The appeal be dismissed with costs.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment