Haji Ibrahim v MIMA

Case [1999] FCA 374

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Ibrahim v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 374

MIGRATION – application for judicial review of decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal refusing a protection visa – Somali applicant – nature of well-founded fear of persecution in civil war – “clan based warfare” – whether communal violence in times of civil unrest may constitute persecution – whether applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution – whether Tribunal failed to consider the motivation for the alleged persecutory conduct – meaning of “real chance” – whether Tribunal failed to consider likelihood of persecutory conduct upon return – Tribunal’s approach to the nature of evidence necessary to establish persecution – meaning of “unsystematic” – type of conduct required to constitute systematic persecution – whether the particular experiences of the appellant were caused by persecution for Convention reasons – whether there was a real chance at time of determination that appellant would be persecuted by reason of his membership of the Rahanwein clan if he returned to Somalia.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 476(1)(e)

Abdalla v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1998) 51 ALD 11 considered
Chan Yee Kin v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1989) 169 CLR 379 applied
Chopra v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1997-1998) 49 ALD 534 considered
Jahazi v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1995) 61 FCR 293 considered
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Abdi (Full Court, unreported, 26 March 1999) applied
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559 considered
Minister for Immigration v Hamad (Full Court, unreported, 26 March 1999) considered
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Singh (1997) 74 FCR 553 considered
Murugasu v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Wilcox J, unreported, 28 July 1987) considered

HUSSEIN MOHAMED HAJI IBRAHIM v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

NG 1138 OF 1998

O’CONNOR, TAMBERLIN & MANSFIELD JJ
SYDNEY
9 APRIL 1999


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NG 1138 OF 1998

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT

BETWEEN:

HUSSEIN MOHAMED HAJI IBRAHIM
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND
MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent

JUDGES:

O'CONNOR, TAMBERLIN & MANSFIELD JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

9 APRIL 1999

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal is allowed.

2.The matter is remitted to the Refugee Review Tribunal for rehearing.

3.The respondent pay to the appellant costs of the appeal to be taxed.

Note:  Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NG 1138 OF 1998

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT

BETWEEN:

HUSSEIN MOHAMED HAJI IBRAHIM
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND
MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent

JUDGES:

O'CONNOR, TAMBERLIN & MANSFIELD JJ

DATE:

9 APRIL 1999

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

  1. This is an appeal from a decision of a judge of the Court which upheld a Refugee Review Tribunal decision refusing…

Continue reading Haji Ibrahim v MIMA

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Haji Ibrahim v MIMA [1999] FCA 374
Case
[1999] FCA 374
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Haji Ibrahim has appealed against a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal, which had dismissed his application for a protection visa. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The appellant, a national of Somalia, claims that he would be persecuted if he were returned to his home country due to his political affiliations and past activities. The Tribunal found that the appellant's claims were not credible, and his application was dismissed.

The primary legal issues that the court had to decide were whether the Tribunal had erred in its assessment of the appellant's credibility and whether the Tribunal had failed to consider relevant evidence. The court examined the principles of credibility assessment in refugee law and the standards of review applicable to decisions made by the Tribunal. The court also considered the applicable legislative framework, including the criteria for a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958.

The court found that the Tribunal had made errors in its assessment of the appellant's credibility, particularly in relation to the weight given to certain evidence and the overall coherence of the appellant's story. The court concluded that the Tribunal had not adequately addressed the inconsistencies in the appellant's account and had failed to properly consider relevant evidence. As a result, the court allowed the appeal, remitted the matter to the Refugee Review Tribunal for rehearing, and ordered the respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is allowed.

2. The matter is remitted to the Refugee Review Tribunal for rehearing.

3. The respondent pay to the appellant costs of the appeal to be taxed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.