Kioa v West

Last updated

Kioa v West
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Full case nameKioa and Others v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Another
Decided18 December 1985
Citation(s) [1985] HCA 81, (1985) 159  CLR  550
Case history
Prior action(s)Kioa v West (1984) 6 ALN N21 - Federal Court
Subsequent action(s)none
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Gibbs CJ, Mason, Wilson, Brennan & Deane JJ
Case opinions
(5:0) The Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act does not oblige the repository of a statutory power to observe the rules of natural justice in exercising that power. (per Curiam)

(4:1) The rules of natural justice applied to the exercise of the power to deport a prohibited immigrant. (per Mason, Wilson, Brennan & Deane JJ; Gibbs CJ dissenting)

Contents

(4:1) The failure to provide an opportunity to respond to prejudicial material in submissions made to the decision maker was a failure to afford procedural fairness. (per Mason, Wilson, Brennan & Deane JJ; Gibbs CJ dissenting)

(3:0) The decision maker was not bound to take into account specific international conventions but was obligated to consider general humanitarian principles. (per Gibbs CJ, Wilson & Brennan JJ; Mason & Deane JJ not considering)

Kioa v West, [1] was a notable case decided in the High Court of Australia regarding the extent and requirements of natural justice and procedural fairness in administrative decision making. The case was also a significant factor in Australia's subsequently limiting what had previously been completely unrestricted jus soli now only to children born to an Australian citizen or permanent resident.

Background

Mr and Mrs Kioa, who were both from Tonga, entered Australia on temporary entry permits in late 1981. When their permits expired they changed their address without informing authorities. Mr Kioa worked in Victoria until he was arrested as a prohibited immigrant in 1983. In the intervening period the Kioas had a daughter, who by virtue of her birth in Australia, was an Australian citizen. [2] Mr Kioa explained that he overstayed his permit in order to earn money to send home to relatives who were suffering as a result of a cyclone in Tonga.

In October 1983, a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs made a decision that the Kioas should be deported. In arriving at that decision the delegate took into account a departmental submission which, inter alia, submitted that Mr Kioa had been actively involved with people who were seeking to circumvent Australia's immigration laws.

The Kioas unsuccessfully appealed the decision to the Federal Court, [3] and the Full Federal Court. [4] They then appealed to the High Court.

Kioas' arguments

The Kioas' principal argument was that the decision maker had failed to afford them procedural fairness in not disclosing and allowing an opportunity to respond to the adverse allegations made in the departmental submission.

They further argued that the delegate had wrongly failed to take into account:

The full court

The full court of the Federal Court held that the principles of natural justice did not apply to the decision to deport a person under the Migration Act and there was no evidence that the delegate had failed to take into account the interests of the Kioas' child. It was further held that the provisions of the Covenant and Declaration did not form part of Australian domestic law and were not required to be taken into account. [4]

High Court's Decision

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act

Section 5(1)(a) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act provided that administrative decisions may be appealed on the ground that there had been a breach of the requirements of natural justice. The court unanimously held that this provision did not oblige a decision maker who was exercising a statutory power to observe the rules of natural justice. In the court's opinion the applicability of natural justice was to be determined by looking at the nature and circumstances of the decision to be made. Brennan J differed slightly in his opinion, contending that the question of whether natural justice applied was to be found through the process of statutory interpretation.

Applicability of natural justice

The court held by a majority of 4 to 1 (Gibbs CJ dissenting) that the rules of natural justice applied to a decision under the Migration Act to deport a prohibited immigrant. The court distinguished previous cases which had come to the opposite conclusion on the basis that these cases had been superseded by legislative development.

Adverse material

The majority also held that the failure to disclose the adverse allegations against Mr Kioa and allow him the opportunity to respond to the allegations amounted to a failure to afford the Kioas procedural fairness.

International agreements

The question of the applicability of international agreements was only considered by three of the justices (Gibbs CJ, Wilson & Brennan JJ). All three held that there was no legal obligation to consider the specific provisions of either the Covenant or the Declaration but that there was an obligation to take into account general humanitarian principles.

Consequences

The decision in Kioa marked a watershed in Australian administrative law. It radically increased the number of decisions to which natural justice and procedural fairness applied such that, today, the question is often not whether procedural fairness should be afforded but to what extent it should be afforded.

The Australia Citizenship Act 1948 was amended in 1986, heavily limiting jus soli and replacing it with jus sanguinis. After this change, birthright citizenship was available only if at least one parent was an Australian citizen or permanent resident; or else after living the first ten years of their life in Australia, regardless of their parent's citizenship status. This amendment was in part influenced by Kioa v West, and the perception that jus soli was being abused. [5] Although the court did not accept the argument made in Kioa that, as an Australian citizen, the child was entitled to natural justice, the government nevertheless amended the Act to ensure that this line of argument was not used in future cases. [6]

Related Research Articles

<i>Jus soli</i> Birthright of anyone born in the territory of a state to nationality or citizenship

Jus soli, meaning 'right of the soil', is the right of anyone born in the territory of a state to nationality or citizenship, also commonly referred to as birthright citizenship in some Anglophone countries, is a rule defining a person's nationality based on their birth in the territory of the country.

Jus sanguinis is a principle of nationality law by which nationality is determined or acquired by the nationality of one or both parents. Children at birth may be nationals of a particular state if either or both of their parents have nationality of that state. It may also apply to national identities of ethnic, cultural, or other origins. Citizenship can also apply to children whose parents belong to a diaspora and were not themselves citizens of the state conferring citizenship. This principle contrasts with jus soli, which is solely based on the place of birth.

In Canadian and New Zealand law, fundamental justice is the fairness underlying the administration of justice and its operation. The principles of fundamental justice are specific legal principles that command "significant societal consensus" as "fundamental to the way in which the legal system ought fairly to operate", per R v Malmo-Levine. These principles may stipulate basic procedural rights afforded to anyone facing an adjudicative process or procedure that affects fundamental rights and freedoms, and certain substantive standards related to the rule of law that regulate the actions of the state.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which held that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China", automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Anchor baby is a term used to refer to a child born to non-citizen parents in a country that has birthright citizenship which will therefore help the parents and other family members gain legal residency. In the U.S., the term is generally used as a derogatory reference to the supposed role of the child, who automatically qualifies as an American citizen under jus soli and the rights guaranteed in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The term is also often used in the context of the debate over illegal immigration to the United States. A similar term, "passport baby", has been used in Canada for children born through so-called "maternity" or "birth tourism".

<i>Suresh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Suresh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the areas of constitutional law and administrative law. The Court held that, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in most circumstances the government cannot deport someone to a country where they risk being tortured, but refugee claimants can be deported to their homelands if they are a serious security risk to Canadians.

<i>Al-Kateb v Godwin</i> 2004 decision of the High Court of Australia

Al-Kateb v Godwin, was a decision of the High Court of Australia, which ruled on 6 August 2004 that the indefinite detention of a stateless person was lawful. The case concerned Ahmed Al-Kateb, a Palestinian man born in Kuwait, who moved to Australia in 2000 and applied for a temporary protection visa. The Commonwealth Minister for Immigration's decision to refuse the application was upheld by the Refugee Review Tribunal and the Federal Court. In 2002, Al-Kateb declared that he wished to return to Kuwait or Gaza. However, since no country would accept Al-Kateb, he was declared stateless and detained under the policy of mandatory detention.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Birth tourism</span> Travel to give birth in another country

Birth tourism is the practice of traveling to another country or city for the purpose of giving birth in that country. The main reason for birth tourism is to obtain citizenship for the child in a country with birthright citizenship. Such a child is sometimes called an "anchor baby" if their citizenship is intended to help their parents obtain permanent residency in the country. Other reasons for birth tourism include access to public schooling, healthcare, sponsorship for the parents in the future, hedge against corruption and political instability in the children’s home country, or even circumvention of China's two-child policy. Popular destinations include the United States and Canada. Another target for birth tourism is Hong Kong, where some mainland Chinese citizens travel to give birth to gain right of abode for their children.

United States citizenship can be acquired by birthright in two situations: by virtue of the person's birth within United States territory or because one or both of their parents is a US citizen. Birthright citizenship contrasts with citizenship acquired in other ways, for example by naturalization.

<i>Minister of State for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Minister of State for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh was an Australian court case which was decided by the High Court of Australia on 7 April 1995. The case is notable for giving unprecedented significance to the ratification of international treaties by the executive government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Philippine nationality law</span> History and regulations of Philippine citizenship

Philippine nationality law details the conditions by which a person is a national of the Philippines. The two primary pieces of legislation governing these requirements are the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines and the 1939 Revised Naturalization Law.

The Citizenship Clause is the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was adopted on July 9, 1868, which states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Citizenship of the United States</span> Legal status in the U.S.

Citizenship of the United States is a legal status that entails Americans with specific rights, duties, protections, and benefits in the United States. It serves as a foundation of fundamental rights derived from and protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, such as freedom of expression, due process, the rights to vote, live and work in the United States, and to receive federal assistance.

<i>Ahani v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Ahani v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [2002] 1 S.C.R. 72; 2002 SCC 2 is a significant decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the areas of constitutional law and administrative law. It is a companion case to Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3. Both cases deal with the procedure for removal of Convention refugees for reasons of national security under the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, and address questions of procedural fairness.

Birthright generation is a term used by immigrant advocates to identify US-born citizens, who are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. It grants American citizenship to all babies born on American soil even if the child is born to one or both undocumented parents. Birthright citizenship may be also conferred either by jus soli or jus sanguinis. Under American law, any person born within the US, including the territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands and subject to its jurisdiction is automatically granted US citizenship.

<i>Calvins Case</i> 1608 English legal decision

Calvin's Case (1608), 77 ER 377, (1608) Co Rep 1a, also known as the Case of the Postnati, was a 1608 English legal decision establishing that a child born in Scotland, after the Union of the Crowns under King James VI and I in 1603, was considered under the common law to be an English subject and entitled to the benefits of English law. Calvin's Case was eventually adopted by courts in the United States, and the case played an important role in shaping the American rule of birthright citizenship via jus soli.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Thai nationality law</span>

Thai nationality law includes principles of both jus sanguinis and jus soli. Thailand's first Nationality Act was passed in 1913. The most recent law dates to 2008.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nationality Act of 1940</span>

The Nationality Act of 1940 revised numerous provisions of law relating to American citizenship and naturalization. It was enacted by the 76th Congress of the United States and signed into law on October 14, 1940, a year after World War II had begun in Europe, but before the U.S. entered the war.

<i>Dimbo v Minister for Justice</i> Supreme Court of Ireland case

The case of Dimbo v Minister for Justice[2008] IESC 26; [2008] 27 ILT 231; [2008] 5 JIC 0101 was a Supreme Court that held that when deciding to make a deportation order in relation to the parents of an Irish born citizen under s.3 of the Immigration Act 1999, the state must consider facts that are specific to the individual child, his or her age, current educational progress, development and opportunities and his/her attachment to the community.

<i>SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs</i>

SZBEL v MIMA is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

References

  1. Kioa v West [1985] HCA 81 , (1985) 159 CLR 550(18 December 1985), High Court (Australia).
  2. "Why did Australia abolish birthright citizenship?". 2 February 2020.
  3. Kioa v Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1984] FCA 131 (15 May 1984), Federal Court (Australia).
  4. 1 2 Kioa v Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1984] FCA 281 (3 October 1984), Federal Court (Full Court) (Australia).
  5. "Why did Australia abolish birthright citizenship?". 2 February 2020.
  6. Alexander Aleinikoff, T.; Klusmeyer, Douglas (25 January 2013). From Migrants to Citizens: Membership in a Changing World. Brookings Institution Press. ISBN   9780870033391.