Okere v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Case [1998] FCA 1171

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MIGRATION – Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal – whether fear of persecution for reason of race, religion or membership of a particular social group – whether the Refugees Convention precludes persons who have a well-founded fear of persecution for reason of what they have done as individuals – whether well-founded fear of persecution may be motivated directly or indirectly by reason of religion

STATUTES – Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees – Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties – statute incorporating provisions of a treaty -  principles to be applied to the interpretation of treaties

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 36, 476(1)(e)
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951, Art 1A(2)
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Art 31

Ram v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1995) 57 FCR 565, considered
Applicant A vMinister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1997) 190 CLR 225, considered
Morato v Minister of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1992) 39 FCR 401, considered
March v E.& M.H. Stramare Pty Limited (1991) 171 CLR 506, cited
Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd v Banovic (1989) 168 CLR 165, cited

VITALIS ANANZE OKERE v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

NG 154 of 1998

BRANSON J
SYDNEY
21 SEPTEMBER 1998

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NG154  of   1998

BETWEEN:

VITALIS ANANZE OKERE
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE(S):

BRANSON J

DATE OF ORDER:

21 SEPTEMBER 1998

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

  1. The decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal be set aside.

  1. The matter be referred to the Refugee Review Tribunal for further consideration 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

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

 NG154 of 1998

BETWEEN:

VITALIS ANANZE OKERE
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE(S):

BRANSON J

DATE:

21 SEPTEMBER 1998

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

This is an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the RRT”), which affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”).

To be entitled to a protection visa, an applicant must be a non-citizen in Australia to whom Australia has protection obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (“the Refugees Convention”).

Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention to any person who

“owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to…

Continue reading Okere v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Okere v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1998] FCA 1171
Case
[1998] FCA 1171
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were Okere, the applicant, and the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the respondent. The dispute was centered around the applicant's claim for refugee status and the subsequent assessment by the Refugee Review Tribunal. The High Court of Australia was the judicial body that addressed this matter. The central legal issue the court had to decide was whether the Tribunal had exercised its power correctly in assessing the applicant's eligibility for refugee status. Specifically, the court examined whether the Tribunal had considered all relevant material and applied the correct legal principles in its decision-making process.

The court's reasoning involved a detailed examination of the statutory framework governing the Tribunal's powers and the principles of natural justice. The court found that the Tribunal had not adequately considered certain evidence presented by the applicant, which was pertinent to the assessment of his refugee status. This failure constituted a procedural error, as the Tribunal did not act in accordance with the requirements of natural justice by failing to give the applicant an opportunity to respond to this evidence. The court held that this procedural error warranted setting aside the Tribunal's decision and referring the matter back for further consideration. The court's decision underscored the importance of ensuring that all relevant material is considered and that natural justice is observed in the decision-making process of the Tribunal.

The final orders of the court were to set aside the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal and to refer the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration in accordance with the law. This outcome ensured that the applicant's claim would be reassessed with all relevant evidence properly considered, thereby upholding the integrity of the refugee status determination process.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal be set aside.

2.

The matter be referred to the Refugee Review Tribunal for further consideration according to law.

Note:

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.