Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

The High Court considered applications by Mr Dranichnikov for special leave to appeal a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court and for prerogative relief under section 75(v) of the Constitution. The central question was whether the Refugee Review Tribunal had constructively failed to exercise its jurisdiction in reviewing Mr Dranichnikov's application for a protection visa. Mr Dranichnikov had arrived in Australia with his wife and daughter and their application for a protection visa was refused by a delegate of the Minister. The Tribunal affirmed this decision, despite finding that Mr Dranichnikov had credible accounts of police inaction and oppression in Vladivostok, Russia, and had suffered a serious assault in February 1994. The Tribunal concluded that his fear of harm from criminal activities by unknown persons did not relate to a "Convention reason" and that he was not persecuted for reasons of his membership of a particular social group, namely businessmen in Russia.

The legal issues before the High Court included whether the Refugee Review Tribunal had misunderstood and failed to address Mr Dranichnikov's case, and whether it had constructively failed to exercise its jurisdiction or failed to accord natural justice. The Court also considered the discretionary considerations relevant to the grant of constitutional relief, particularly whether the availability of an appeal could act as a bar to such relief, and the relevance of the repeal of applicable legislation to the form of relief granted. The Federal Court had previously dismissed Mr Dranichnikov's application for review, finding that his arguments largely constituted impermissible attempts to impeach the Tribunal's factual conclusions.

The High Court dismissed Mr Dranichnikov's applications. The Court noted that the Federal Court had been presented with numerous untenable points by the applicant, who was unrepresented. While the Federal Court had considered whether the Tribunal had erred in failing to address whether Mr Dranichnikov's involvement in protest meetings about corruption was a manifestation of political opinion, it determined that this was not central to his case, which was framed in the context of his exposure to risk as an "entrepreneur" and thus invoked the "particular social group" ground. The High Court found no error of law in the Tribunal's decision and therefore no basis for granting the special leave to appeal or the prerogative relief sought.