Htun v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs

Link copied
Case Copied 47 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Htun v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1802

MIGRATION – appeal from review of Refugee Review Tribunal refusing to grant a protection visa – sur place claims of fear of persecution by reason of imputed political opinion – Tribunal failed to consider and deal with all the claims of the applicant or all essential elements of claim – Tribunal under duty to deal with the claim actually raised by the material – failure to exercise jurisdiction or to consider statutorily relevant consideration – a failure to attend to evidence distinguished from Yusuf jurisdictional error – Tribunal failed to properly assess possibilities of future persecution and so to properly apply ‘real chance of persecution’ test – cumulative consideration of risk of persecution – appeal allowed – remitted to Tribunal.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 414, s 476

Migration Regulations 1984  reg 866

Chen v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2000) 106 FCR 157 referred to

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Sarrazola (2001) 107 FCR 184 referred to

Sellamuthu v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1999) 90 FCR 287 referred to

Paramanathan v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1998) 94 FCR 28 referred to

Satheeskumar v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 1285 referred to

Giraldo v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 113 referred to

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 180 ALR 1 applied

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Rajalingam (1999) 93 FCR 220 applied

Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 applied

Minister for Aboriginal Affairs vPeko Wallsend (1986) 162 CLR 24 applied

Thiet Naing Htun v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
W337 of 2001

SPENDER, MERKEL and ALLSOP JJ

18 DECEMBER 2001

SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

W337 of 2001

On appeal from a decision of a single judge of the Federal Court of Australia

BETWEEN:

THIET NAING HTUN
APPELLANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

SPENDER, MERKEL and ALLSOP JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

18 DECEMBER 2001

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY (Heard in Perth)

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.   the appeal be allowed;

2.   the respondent pay the appellant’s costs; and

3.   the matter be remitted to the Refugee Review Tribunal for reconsideration according to law.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

W337 of 2001

On appeal from a decision of a single judge of the Federal Court of Australia

BETWEEN:

THIET NAING HTUN
APPELLANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

SPENDER, MERKEL and ALLSOP JJ

DATE:

18  DECEMBER 2001

PLACE:

SYDNEY (Heard in Perth)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

SPENDER J:

  1. I have had the benefit of reading, in draft form, the reasons for judgment of Allsop J.  I agree with those reasons and with the orders…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Htun v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2001] FCA 1802
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Htun versus the Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs involved a claimant seeking refugee status in Australia. The appellant, Htun, was a citizen of Myanmar who had fled to Australia and applied for refugee status on the basis of persecution due to his political beliefs. The Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs rejected the appellant's application, and the Refugee Review Tribunal upheld the decision. Htun appealed the decision to the Federal Court of Australia, arguing that the Tribunal had erred in its assessment of his refugee status.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Tribunal had correctly applied the relevant provisions of the Migration Act and the Refugee Convention in assessing the appellant's application for refugee status. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the Tribunal had erred in its consideration of the appellant's political beliefs and the risk of persecution he faced if returned to Myanmar. The court also had to consider whether the Tribunal had given proper weight to the evidence presented by the appellant in support of his application.

The court found that the Tribunal had erred in its assessment of the appellant's refugee status. The court held that the Tribunal had not given proper weight to the evidence presented by the appellant and had failed to adequately consider the risk of persecution he faced if returned to Myanmar. The court found that the Tribunal's decision was flawed and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration according to law. The court also ordered that the respondent pay the appellant's costs and allowed the appeal. The matter was to be remitted to the Refugee Review Tribunal for reconsideration in accordance with the court's decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. the appeal be allowed;

2. the respondent pay the appellant’s costs; and

3. the matter be remitted to the Refugee Review Tribunal for reconsideration according to law.

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.