WACG v MIMA

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WACG v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002]
FCAFC 332

MIGRATION – Appeal from single Judge dismissing an application for review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal (“RRT”) – RRT affirmed decision of delegate not to grant protection visa to appellant – RRT not satisfied that claims made by appellant relating to harassment by Syrian authorities resulted from racial or political prejudice – no reviewable error of law found by primary Judge – application of Article 1(D) of the Refugee Convention – whether expression “ipso facto” in Article 1(D) confers an entitlement on appellant to a protection visa.

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v WABQ [2002] FCAFC 329 referred to

WACG v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
W 541 OF 2001

HILL, MOORE AND TAMBERLIN JJ
SYDNEY (HEARD IN PERTH)
8 NOVEMBER 2002

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	W 541 OF 2001

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	WACG APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGES:	HILL, MOORE AND TAMBERLIN JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	8 NOVEMBER 2002
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY (HEARD IN PERTH)

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal is dismissed.

2.The appellant pay the respondent’s cost of 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
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	W 541 OF 2001

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	WACG APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGES:	HILL, MOORE AND TAMBERLIN JJ
DATE:	8 NOVEMBER 2002
PLACE:	SYDNEY (HEARD IN PERTH)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

HILL J:

1. I have read the judgment of Tamberlin J and for the reasons which I have given in Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v WABQ [2002] FCAFC 329, I am of the view that protection obligations do not automatically arise under the second paragraph of Article 1(D) of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28 July 1951 as amended by the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees done at New York on 31 January 1967 (“the Convention”). Thus, as the appellant does not fall within the definition of “refugee” in Article 1A(2) of the Convention, the appeal must be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraph is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Hill.

Associate:

Dated:            8 November 2002

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	W 541 OF 2001

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	WACG APPELLANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGES:	HILL, MOORE AND TAMBERLIN JJ
DATE:	8 NOVEMBER 2002
PLACE:	SYDNEY (HEARD IN PERTH)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

MOORE J:

1. I agree with the reasons and orders of Tamberlin J.

I certify that the preceding one (1)…