Kin v The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs; Lee v The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs; Chan v The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs

These three appeals concerned determinations made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs that the appellants, Kin, Lee, and Chan, did not have the status of refugee within the meaning of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its Protocol. The determinations were made under section 6A(1)(c) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The appellants argued that these decisions were subject to review under the *Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977* (Cth), a proposition conceded by the respondent. The High Court of Australia was required to consider the meaning of "refugee" as defined by the Convention and Protocol.

The central legal issue before the Court was the interpretation of the definition of "refugee" under the Convention and Protocol, as applied to the facts of each case. Specifically, the Court had to determine whether the appellants, by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion, were outside their country of nationality and unable or unwilling to avail themselves of its protection. The delegate's determination had concluded that the appellants did not meet this definition.

The Court's reasoning focused on the text of the Convention and Protocol. The definition of a refugee, as amended by the Protocol, requires an individual to have a "well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion," and to be outside their country of nationality and unable or unwilling to seek its protection. The delegate's decision had been that the appellants did not satisfy this criterion. The Court was therefore tasked with examining whether the delegate's conclusion was legally sound based on this definition.