Mijoljevic v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 834

Mijoljevic v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 834

The Tribunal made no error of law. On the proper construction of cl 866, the applicant could not rely on a derivative family unit claim first pressed after his de facto wife had already been granted a protection visa; cl 866.222 refers to an applicant who made an application under cl 866.211(b). The Tribunal was also entitled on the evidence to conclude that the applicant's pacifist views did not establish that Australia owed him protection obligations, because compulsory military service and penalties for avoidance were laws of general application, the claim that he would be singled out was rejected as not credible, and it was highly unlikely he would be called up at his age.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 June 1999
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of a Protection Visa / Application for Review Under Migration Act 1958 (cth), S 476(1)(e); Judgment Dismissing the Application
Outcome
Application dismissed; Tribunal decision affirmed.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'error of Law' 'construction of Migration Regulations 1994 Schedule 2 Cl 866.21 and Cl 866.22' 'family Unit Derivative Claims' 'conscientious Objection to Military Service' 'persecution Under the Refugees Convention']
['migration Law' 'refugee Law' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'error of Law' 'construction of Migration Regulations 1994 Schedule 2 Cl 866.21 and Cl 866.22' 'family Unit Derivative Claims' 'conscientious Objection to Military Service' 'persecution Under the Refugees Convention']

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

Judicial Review of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of a Protection Visa / Application for Review Under Migration Act 1958 (cth), S 476(1)(e); Judgment Dismissing the Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal erred in construing sub-items 866.21 and 866.22 of Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations in relation to a later claim based on being a member of the same family unit as a protection visa holder.' 'Whether the Tribunal misconstrued persecution by concluding that conscientious objection to military service and penalties flowing from such objection could not attract the protection of the Refugees Convention.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal made no error of law. On the proper construction of cl 866, the applicant could not rely on a derivative family unit claim first pressed after his de facto wife had already been granted a protection visa; cl 866.222 refers to an applicant who made an application under cl 866.211(b). The Tribunal was also entitled on the evidence to conclude that the applicant's pacifist views did not establish that Australia owed him protection obligations, because compulsory military service and penalties for avoidance were laws of general application, the claim that he would be singled out was rejected as not credible, and it was highly unlikely he would be called up at his age.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; Tribunal decision affirmed.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.']