MIMA v Khawar

Last updated
MIMA v Khawar
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Full case nameMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Khawar
Decided11 April 2002
Citation(s)210 CLR 1; 2002 HCA 14
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingGleeson C.J., McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, and Callinan JJ
Case opinions
Appeal dismissed
Gleeson CJ
McHugh & Gummow JJ
Kirby J
dissenting
Callinan J

MIMA v Khawar 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 seventh most times of any High Court decision. [1] [2]

At issue in the appeal was an application for a protection visa by Ms Khawar, a citizen of Pakistan. Ms Khawar had fled Pakistan as a victim of domestic violence. [3]

Facts

World map of countries that are signatories of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees Refugee Convention Signatories.svg
World map of countries that are signatories of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees

Khawar and her children had arrived in Australia in June 1997, and lodged applications for protection visas shortly after. Her application was refused by a ministerial delegate. This refusal was then affirmed by the Refugee Review Tribunal.

In her failed applications for appeal Khawar had submitted evidence of the Pakistan police refusing to assist her in the face of serious domestic violence. She also made a submission that in effect claimed that discrimination against women in Pakistan is partly tolerated and sanctioned by the state. [4] The Tribunal refused to make any findings regarding either of these submissions. It considered both claims irrelevant to her application. It assumed that the harm that Khawar feared was only motivated by personal circumstances relating to her marriage; and only examined the motivations of the perpetrator as being relevant. [Note 1]

Khawar made a successful appeal to the Federal Court before Branson J. The court found the Tribunal erred for incorrectly applying the refugee convention, and for failing to make findings in response to Khawar's submissions. The Minister's appeal to the full federal court was dismissed. Special leave was then granted by the High Court.

Judgement

It was found that the refugee convention's requirement of 'persecution' could be satisfied even when harm to a victim is perpetrated by a non-State actor. A victim could be eligible for refugee protection if denied assistance they would ordinarily expect from the state in attempting to resolve a harm, so long as the reason for that neglect was a 'convention reason'. [Note 2] [5]

The court additionally found that it would be open for the Tribunal to declare that 'women in Pakistan' meets the description of 'particular social group' under the refugee convention. On the issue of such a group being quite large, Gleeson CJ wrote: [6]

'The size of the group does not necessarily stand in the way ... There are instances where the victims of persecution in a country have been a majority. It is power, not number, that creates the conditions in which persecution may occur.'

The Minister's appeal was then dismissed by the court. Khawar's application was remitted to the Tribunal, for findings to be made regarding her submissions.

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Under Art IA(2) of the refugee convention; to be eligible for protection, the fear of harm to a person must arise for reason of 'race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership of a particular social group'
  2. ↑ discrimination is for a 'convention reason' when it is motivate by reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership of a particular social group

Related Research Articles

The system of tort law in Australia is broadly similar to that in other common law countries. However, some divergences in approach have occurred as its independent legal system has developed.

<i>R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers Society of Australia</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia, known as the Boilermakers' Case, was a 1956 decision of the High Court of Australia which considered the powers of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration to punish the Boilermakers' Society of Australia, a union which had disobeyed the orders of that court in relation to an industrial dispute between boilermakers and their employer body, the Metal Trades Employers' Association.

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.

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> Case in Australian High Court regarding judicial review

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>Z. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Z. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform[2002] IESC 14, [2002]; 2 ILRM 215 is an Irish Supreme Court case where the Court ruled that the absence of an oral hearing need not infringe the right of an applicant for refugee status to natural and constitutional justice.

<i>Briginshaw v Briginshaw</i> Prominent Australian High Court case decided in 1938

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (Briginshaw) is a decision of the High Court of Australia which considered how the requisite standard of proof should operate in civil proceedings.

<i>Chan Yee Kin v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

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

<i>MIEA v Guo</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

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> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

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

<i>Veen v R</i> (No 2)

Veen v R is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

<i>MIMA v Haji Ibrahim</i> Court decision

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

<i>Dinsdale v R</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

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

<i>Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

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

<i>Applicant S v MIMA</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

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

<i>Appellant S395/2002 v MIMA</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

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

<i>MIMA v Respondents S152/2003</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

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

References

  1. ↑ 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. ↑ Note: data is as of July 2023
  3. ↑ 210 CLR 1, Gleeson at [4]
  4. ↑ 210 CLR 1, Gleeson at [9] - [10]
  5. ↑ Refugee Grounds and Nexus (PDF). Administrative Appeals Tribunal. 2020. p. 6.
  6. ↑ 210 CLR 1, Gleeson at [33]
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.