SBBA v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs

[2003] FCAFC 90

Full Court of the Federal Court

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Immigration
2. › Refugees
3. › Protection visa
4. › Well-founded fear of persecution
5. › Serious harm
6. › Whether denial of right to receive 'blood money' amounts to serious harm
7. › Whether discrimination in legal system constitutes persecution
8. › Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 91R
1. Immigration
2. › Refugees
3. › Protection visa
4. › Tribunal's obligations
5. › Whether Tribunal required to consider claim of perceived nationality not directly raised by applicant
6. › Substantive issues arising from evidence
1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Refugee Review Tribunal
4. › Bias
5. › Actual bias
6. › Good faith
7. › Whether preference for independent country information over applicant's evidence demonstrates bias
8. › Allegations must be firmly and distinctly made and clearly proven
1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Refugee Review Tribunal
4. › Jurisdictional error
5. › Duty to consider claims
6. › Whether Tribunal must consider unarticulated claims
7. › Distinction between substantive issues arising from evidence and making good an unarticulated case

Quick Take

The denial of a right to receive 'blood money' (compensation for murder, accidental death or bodily injury) does not constitute 'serious harm' under s 91R of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) where the circumstances giving rise to such an entitlement have not arisen for the applicant and may never arise. The instances of serious harm in s 91R involve substantial physical detriment, threats to subsistence, or threats to life or liberty. A Tribunal's preference for independent country information over an applicant's evidence does not, without more, establish bias.