MIMA v Haji Ibrahim

Last updated

MIMA v Haji Ibrahim
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Full case nameMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Haji Ibrahim
Decided26 October 2000
Citation(s)204 CLR 1; 2000 HCA 55
Case opinions
Appeal allowed
Gleeson CJ
Gummow J
Hayne J
Callinan J
dissent
Gaudron J
McHugh J
Kirby J
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingGleeson C.J., Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne and Callinan JJ

MIMA v Haji Ibrahim is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

Contents

The case is an important decision in Australian refugee law.

According to LawCite, the case has been cited the fourth most times of any High Court decision. [1] [2]

Facts

Pictured: a map of Somalian ethnic groups in 2002 Somalia ethnic grps 2002.jpg
Pictured: a map of Somalian ethnic groups in 2002

Haji Ibrahim was refused a protection visa by a delegate of the immigration minister in 1998. He appealed the decision, and was unsuccessful at first instance before Katz J, but won at a full court hearing before O'Connor, Tamberlin, and Mansfield JJ. [3]

Pictured: an American helicopter delivering wheat donated by the Australian Government during the 1990s civil conflict in Somalia. Haji Ibrahim had fled this conflict. Aus wheat in Somalia.jpg
Pictured: an American helicopter delivering wheat donated by the Australian Government during the 1990s civil conflict in Somalia. Haji Ibrahim had fled this conflict.

The Tribunal had affirmed the Minister's refusal. It was unsatisfied that Ibrahim possessed a 'well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion' if he was to return to Somalia. It found that while Somalia was in a state of civil war; the danger arising from this fact alone was not enough to make a finding of refugee status. [4] According to the tribunal, while Ibrahim belonged to a minority ethnic group named the Rahanweyn clan, the persecution he would have faced was indicative of 'the ordinary risks of clan warfare, largely involving struggles for power and resources, in a context of instability and anarchy'. Members of all clans were found to be at risk, but this was not enough, in the Tribunal's view; to 'convert the conflict into persecution'. [4]

The Full Court agreed that 'the mere fact a civil conflict is 'clan based' does not make its victims the victims of persecution. It found that the tribunal should have assessed the motivation behind the clan based warfare to determine whether there had been persecution for a convention reason. [5] The Tribunal's failure to assess the motivation behind an incident where Ibrahim had been captured was found an error of law. The court found it should have evaluated whether the reason he was detained was 'driven by the intent to repress his particular clan'. [5]

The Minister was then granted special leave to appeal before the High Court.

Judgement

In separate judgements, a majority of the High Court found that the Tribunal had not committed an error of law. The decision to refuse Ibrahim a refugee visa was affirmed by the court.

Significance

Ibrahim is one of the High Court's most cited cases, as it is often included in the written reasons of Tribunal and Court decisions for refugee visa matters. For this reason it is one of the most cited High Court cases in Australia, ranking number four on LawCite. [1] [2]

The case is frequently cited for the proposition that 'the Convention definition of ‘refugee’ does not encompass those fleeing generalised violence, internal turmoil, or civil war'. [6]

See also

Related Research Articles

Australian administrative law defines the extent of the powers and responsibilities held by administrative agencies of Australian governments. It is basically a common law system, with an increasing statutory overlay that has shifted its focus toward codified judicial review and to tribunals with extensive jurisdiction.

The New Zealand Refugee Status Appeals Authority or RSAA, was an independent authority that heard the appeals of people who had been declined refugee status by the Refugee Status Branch of the New Zealand Immigration Service. It was established in 1991, and was replaced by the Immigration and Protection Tribunal in 2010. New Zealand established the RSAA as part of its responsibility to uphold the right of asylum as a result of being a signatory of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol. The decisions of the RSAA are not binding, but have had a significant impact on refugee jurisprudence.

<i>Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth</i>

Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth, also known as 'S157', is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

<i>HJ and HT v Home Secretary</i>

HJ (Iran) and HT (Cameroon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 31 is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom concerning two men, from Iran and Cameroon respectively, claiming asylum in the United Kingdom on the grounds of their homosexuality. The men's claims had previously been turned down on the basis they would not face persecution in their own countries if they would conceal their sexuality. The appeal therefore centred on the question as to whether the men on their return could reasonably be expected to tolerate this requirement of discretion; the so-called 'discretion' or 'reasonable tolerability' test. Interventions were made by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

The Immigration and Protection Tribunal is a specialist, independent tribunal established in New Zealand under the Immigration Act 2009 with jurisdiction to hear appeals and applications regarding residence class visas, deportation, and claims to be recognised as a refugee or as a protected person. The Tribunal is administered by the Ministry of Justice and is chaired by a District Court Judge, appointed by the Governor General on the recommendation of the Attorney-General.

<i>Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS</i>

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS, is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court. The matter related to immigration law, jurisdictional error and illogicality as a ground of judicial review.

Particular social group (PSG) is one of five categories that may be used to claim refugee status according to two key United Nations documents: the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees. The other four categories are race, religion, nationality, and political opinion. As the most ambiguous and open-ended of the categories, the PSG category has been the subject of considerable debate and controversy in refugee law. Note that just as with the other four categories, membership in a PSG is not sufficient grounds for being granted refugee status. Rather, to be granted refugee status, one must both demonstrate membership in one of the five categories and a nexus between that membership and persecution one is facing or risks facing.

<i>Chan Yee Kin v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs</i>

Chan Yee Kin v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (Chan) is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

<i>MIEA v Guo</i>

MIEA v Guo, also known as 'Guo' is a decision of the High Court of Australia. The case is an important decision in Australian refugee law. The case has been described as setting out 'what is required for a decision-maker to have a "rational basis" for determining whether an applicant for refugee status has a well founded fear of persecution'.

<i>Chen Shi Hai v MIMA</i>

Chen Shi Hai v MIMA, also known as 'Chen' is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

<i>Fox v Percy</i>

Fox v Percy is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

<i>Dinsdale v R</i>

Dinsdale v R is an Australian legal case decided in the High Court.

<i>MIMA v Khawar</i>

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

<i>Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang</i>

MIEA v Wu Shan Liang is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

<i>Applicant S v MIMA</i>

Applicant S v MIMA is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

<i>Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf</i>

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf, also known as 'Yusuf', is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

<i>Appellant S395/2002 v MIMA</i>

Appellant S395/2002 v MIMA is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

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

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

<i>MIMA v Respondents S152/2003</i>

MIMAvRespondents S152/2003 is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

<i>Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy</i>

Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

References

  1. 1 2 Note: LawCite citation statistics track the written judgements of courts, journal articles, and tribunals. (both in Australia and overseas) https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=&party1=&party2=&court=High%2BCourt%2Bof%2BAustralia&juris=&article=&author=&year1=&year2=&synonyms=on&filter=on&cases-cited=&legis-cited=&section=&large-search-ok=1&sort-order=cited
  2. 1 2 Note: data is as of September 2020
  3. ↑ 204 CLR 1 at para. 106
  4. 1 2 204 CLR 1 at para. 123
  5. 1 2 204 CLR 1 at para. 126
  6. ↑ 11 Application of the Refugees Convention in particular situations (PDF) (Report). Vol. 11–5. Administrative Appeals Tribunal. October 2019. Retrieved 28 November 2020.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.