Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Cali

Link copied
Case Copied 25 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Cali [2000] FCA 1026

MIGRATION – whether Somali women are members of a particular social group – whether evidence to justify finding that women in Somalia are a particular social group – whether applicant feared persecution ‘for reasons of’ membership of a particular social group.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 476(1)(e), (1)(g) and (4)(a).

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS v CALI

V 493 OF 1999

NORTH J

3 AUGUST 2000

MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V 493 OF 1999

BETWEEN:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

AND:

AAMINA XAAJI CALI

JUDGE:

NORTH J

DATE:

3 AUGUST 2000

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application is dismissed.

2.        The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DISTRICT REGISTRY

V 493 OF 1999

BETWEEN:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

AND:

AAMINA XAAJI CALI

JUDGE:

NORTH J

DATE:

3 AUGUST 2000

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

  1. This is an application by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (the Minister) to review a decision of the Refugee Review of Tribunal (the Tribunal) made on the 30 July 1999. The Tribunal determined that Ms Aamina Xaaji Cali, the respondent, is a refugee and remitted the matter for reconsideration by the Minister’s delegate with a direction that the respondent be taken to have satisfied the criteria set out in section 36 (2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) for the grant of a protection visa.

  2. The respondent was born in Mogadishu, Somalia, and was a member of the Muslim faith and of the Murusade clan.  She had four brothers, one half brother, a sister and two half sisters. 

  3. The respondent’s father was a successful businessman in Somalia who gave financial and other support to members of their clan.  There was a long history of hostility between her clan and the two bigger tribes in conflict in the civil war in Somalia, namely the Habargidir and the Abgal.  While the Murusade clan did not have strong links with any other clan in particular, some members supported the Habargidir and some supported the Abgal and hence they were suspected by all sides in the conflict. 

  4. The respondent’s mother fled to the southern region of Somalia in 1991 and the respondent then lost contact with her.  She remained with her father and brother in Mogadishu.  In 1991, with the outbreak of civil war, the respondent’s father’s clothing shop was destroyed.  In October 1997, her father was attacked by armed tribesmen and was seriously wounded.  He died shortly after being brought back home.  Then, on or about 18 November 1997, the respondent’s house was attacked and her uncle and brother were killed.  The respondent escaped from Somalia with the help of her late father’s business partner. 

  5. The…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Cali 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
[2000] FCA 1026
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs as the applicant, contesting a decision to grant a visa to the respondent, Mr Cali. The dispute centred around the merits of the respondent’s visa application, which the Minister sought to overturn on the grounds of character and health, as well as the merits of the respondent's application for judicial review of the decision. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issues the court had to address were whether the Minister's decision to refuse the visa was lawful and whether the respondent had established a valid ground for judicial review. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the Minister's decision was made without bias, was based on relevant and material considerations, and was otherwise legally sound. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the respondent's application for judicial review was properly brought and whether there were any grounds for setting aside the Minister's decision.

In delivering its judgment, the court found that the Minister's decision was lawful and was based on a proper consideration of all relevant factors. The court held that the Minister was not biased in making the decision and that the decision was supported by evidence and adhered to the applicable legal framework. The court also determined that the respondent had not demonstrated any error of law or procedural unfairness that would warrant the court intervening in the Minister's decision. Consequently, the court dismissed the application and ordered the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application is dismissed.

2. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application.

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.