Buchari v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 432

Buchari v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 432

The Tribunal did not commit reviewable error. It considered the applicant's claims and country information, addressed whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution, was not required to treat past fear as presumptively continuing, and made findings open on the evidence that changed conditions in Indonesia and adequate State protection in Jakarta meant the applicant did not face a real chance of Convention persecution.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Migration Judicial Review of Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Concerning Protection Visa / Federal Court Application Dismissed
Outcome
The application was dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'well Founded Fear of Persecution' 'real Chance of Persecution Test' 'state Protection' 'ethnic Chinese Indonesians' 'religious Persecution']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'refugee Law'] ['protection Visa' 'well Founded Fear of Persecution' 'real Chance of Persecution Test' 'state Protection' 'ethnic Chinese Indonesians' 'religious Persecution']

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 Judicial Review of Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Concerning Protection Visa / Federal Court Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Refugee Review Tribunal failed to apply the real chance of persecution test.' 'Whether a past well-founded fear of persecution creates a presumption that the fear continues unless rebutted by changed country conditions.' 'Whether the Tribunal failed to consider whether the Indonesian government was capable of providing effective protection.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not commit reviewable error. It considered the applicant's claims and country information, addressed whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution, was not required to treat past fear as presumptively continuing, and made findings open on the evidence that changed conditions in Indonesia and adequate State protection in Jakarta meant the applicant did not face a real chance of Convention persecution.

Court Disposition

The application was dismissed with costs.

Orders

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