Labara v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 145

Labara v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 145

The Tribunal failed to consider the correct question: whether, in a practical sense, Ukraine was able to provide protection against future harm to the appellants, particularly in light of the accepted history of repeated religiously motivated harm to the first appellant. It was an error to treat individual attacks by different private perpetrators as incapable of amounting to persecution for a Convention reason. This failure affected whether the appellants' fear of persecution was well-founded and constituted jurisdictional error.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal Concerning Refusal of Protection Visas and Judicial Review of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision / Appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court From a Single Judge Dismissing an Application for Judicial Review
Outcome
Appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'well Founded Fear of Persecution' 'persecution for Reasons of Religion' 'non State Actors' 'state Protection' 'jurisdictional Error' 'refugee Review Tribunal']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'refugee Law'] ['protection Visa' 'well Founded Fear of Persecution' 'persecution for Reasons of Religion' 'non State Actors' 'state Protection' 'jurisdictional Error' 'refugee Review Tribunal']

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

Migration Appeal Concerning Refusal of Protection Visas and Judicial Review of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision / Appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court From a Single Judge Dismissing an Application for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal erred by not addressing possible future harm that might befall the appellants.' 'Whether the Tribunal erred by not considering whether the Ukrainian government was able, in a practical sense, to prevent harm by private citizens.' 'Whether individual and random attacks by different private perpetrators could constitute persecution for a Convention reason.' "Whether the Tribunal failed to ask the correct question in determining whether the appellants' fear of persecution was well-founded."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal failed to consider the correct question: whether, in a practical sense, Ukraine was able to provide protection against future harm to the appellants, particularly in light of the accepted history of repeated religiously motivated harm to the first appellant. It was an error to treat individual attacks by different private perpetrators as incapable of amounting to persecution for a Convention reason. This failure affected whether the appellants' fear of persecution was well-founded and constituted jurisdictional error.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is allowed.' 'The orders of the primary judge of 9 April 2001 are set aside.' 'The decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal of 19 October 2000 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the said Tribunal for reconsideration according to law.' 'The parties are to pay their own costs.']