VAM v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1809

VAM v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1809

The application failed because the Tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction. The Tribunal considered and rejected the applicant's claimed particular social group, and the alternative group of policemen or ex-policemen who gave information about Ringo was not a particular social group because it was defined by actions and alleged persecution rather than by a cognisable social characteristic recognised in Malaysian society. In any event, the Tribunal had found that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution, and it was entitled to consider that question separately from whether any fear was for a Convention reason.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 December 2001
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of a Protection Visa / Reasons for Judgment and Final Orders
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'privative Clause' 'jurisdictional Error' 'particular Social Group' 'well Founded Fear of Persecution']
['immigration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'privative Clause' 'jurisdictional Error' 'particular Social Group' 'well Founded Fear of 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

Application for Judicial Review of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of a Protection Visa / Reasons for Judgment and Final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether s 474 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) deprived the Court of jurisdiction to review the Tribunal decision except in limited circumstances involving jurisdictional error.' 'Whether the Tribunal made jurisdictional error by failing to identify or consider a particular social group for the purposes of Art 1A(2) of the Convention.' 'Whether a group of policemen or ex-policemen who provided information to authorities about the criminal activities of Ringo constituted a particular social group.' 'Whether the Tribunal was entitled to consider separately whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution and whether any such fear was for a Convention reason.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application failed because the Tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction. The Tribunal considered and rejected the applicant's claimed particular social group, and the alternative group of policemen or ex-policemen who gave information about Ringo was not a particular social group because it was defined by actions and alleged persecution rather than by a cognisable social characteristic recognised in Malaysian society. In any event, the Tribunal had found that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution, and it was entitled to consider that question separately from whether any fear was for a Convention reason.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

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