Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Haji Ibrahim [2000] HCA 55

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GLEESON CJ,

GAUDRON, McHUGH, GUMMOW, KIRBY, HAYNE AND CALLINAN JJ

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND

MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS APPELLANT

AND

HUSSEIN MOHAMED HAJI IBRAHIM RESPONDENT

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Haji Ibrahim

[2000] HCA 55

26 October 2000

S157/1999

ORDER

1. Appeal allowed.

2. Orders 1 and 2 of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia made on 9 April 1999 be set aside.

3. In lieu thereof, order that the appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia be dismissed.

4. Appellant to pay respondent's costs of this appeal.

On appeal from the Federal Court of Australia

Representation:

J Basten QC with N J Williams for the appellant (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)

T A Game SC with S J Gageler for the respondent (instructed by Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales)

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Haji Ibrahim

Immigration – Refugees – Protection visa – Clan-based conflict in Somalia – Whether persecution on Convention grounds – Use of terms "civil war", "civil conflict" and "systematic persecution" – Whether Convention definition permits or requires examination of the "motivation" for or "objects of" a "civil war" or "civil conflict" or demonstration of a "differential operation" upon an applicant's social group.

Words and phrases – "persecution" – "for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion".

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 36(2), 476(i)(e).

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Sched 2, Subclass 866.

Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1951), Art 1A(2).

1. GLEESON CJ. I have had the benefit of reading in draft form the reasons for judgment of Gummow J. I agree with the orders proposed by his Honour, and with his reasons for those orders. 2. The decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in this case reflected the earlier decision of the Full Court, constituted by the same members, in Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Abdi[1]. In the present case the Full Court said[2]: