Legal Research
Cases
Savvin v MIMA

Savvin v MIMA

Case [1999] FCA 1265 13 September 1999

Refugee Status

Statelessness

Well-Founded Fear of Persecution

Statutory Interpretation

Immigration & Refugee Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Savvin v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 1265
IMMIGRATION – application for refugee status – definition of refugee – whether persecution – whether person “not having a nationality” need be outside the country of former habitual residence for fear of Convention persecution – whether stateless persons the same as nationals for the purposes of the Convention – use of extrinsic materials for interpretation
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951
Collected Travaux Préparatoires of the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees
Minister for Immigration v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559
Applicant A v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1996-1997) 190 CLR 225
Chan Yee Kin v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1989) 169 CLR 379
Rishmawi v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1997) 77 FCR 421
Husein Ali Haris and Others v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1998) FCA 78
Ali-Anezi v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1999) FCA 335
Ali-Anezi v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1999) FCA 556
Adan v Home Secretary [1997] 1 WLR 1107
Adan v Home Secretary [1999] 1 AC 293
Somaghi v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1991) 31 FCR 100
Attorney-General (Canada) v Ward (1993) 103 DLR(4^th)
SAVVIN V MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Q 49 OF 1999
DOWSETT J
13 SEPTEMBER 1999
BRISBANE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q 49 of 1999

BETWEEN:

VIATCHESLAV SAVVIN
First Applicant

LIOUBOV SAVVINA
Second Applicant

JANNA SAVVINA
Third Applicant

OLGA SAVVINA BY HER NEXT FRIEND VIATCHESLAV SAVVIN
Fourth Applicant

AND:

THE HONOURABLE PHILLIP RUDDOCK, MP, MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent

JUDGE:

DOWSETT J

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q 49 of 1999

BETWEEN:

VIATCHESLAV SAVVIN
First Applicant

LIOUBOV SAVVINA
Second Applicant

JANNA SAVVINA
Third Applicant

OLGA SAVVINA BY HER NEXT FRIEND VIATCHESLAV SAVVIN
Fourth Applicant

AND:

THE HONOURABLE PHILLIP RUDDOCK, MP, MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent

JUDGE:

DOWSETT J

DATE:

13 SEPTEMBER 1999

PLACE:

BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE APPLICATION

This is an application pursuant to the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal, upholding a departmental decision to refuse applications for protection visas.
THE DEFINITION OF “REFUGEE”
Entitlement to a protection visa depends upon classification as a “refugee”. It will be necessary, at a later stage in these reasons, to address the proper construction of the definition which appears in the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28 July 1951 (the “Convention”), as amended by the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees done at New York on 31 January 1967 (the “Protocol”). For the moment, it is sufficient to observe that a refugee is a person who:-
owing to well-founded fear of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Savvin v MIMA

Details

AGLC: Savvin v MIMA [1999] FCA 1265
Case: [1999] FCA 1265
Decision Date: 13 SEPTEMBER 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants in this case, a family from Latvia, sought a review of a decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal to reject their applications for protection visas. The primary issue before the Court was whether the applicants, who had left Latvia and claimed to be stateless, qualified as refugees under the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. The applicants argued that the Tribunal incorrectly assessed their claims of persecution and failed to properly consider the Convention's definition of "refugee" as it applies to stateless persons. The Court found that the Tribunal's approach to assessing the applicants' claims of persecution was correct, and that there was no evidence of persecution sufficient to support a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason. Regarding the definition of "refugee", the Court rejected the Tribunal's interpretation that a stateless person must be outside their country of former habitual residence due to a well-founded fear of persecution. Instead, the Court held that the plain meaning of the Convention's definition allows a stateless person to be a refugee if they are outside their country of former habitual residence and unable or unwilling to return for any reason. The Court emphasised the importance of treating the text of the Convention as the starting point for interpretation and noted that the Convention's purpose is to provide protection to displaced persons, including those who are stateless. The Court also noted that the applicants' claims of statelessness had not been properly investigated and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration. The Court set aside the Tribunal's decision and ordered the matter to be reconsidered in accordance with the Court's reasons.

Orders