Appellant S395/2002 v MIMA
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| S395/2002 v MIMA | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | High Court of Australia |
| Full case name | Appellant S395/2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs |
| Decided | 2003 |
| Citation | 216 CLR 473 |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Callinan and Heydon JJ |
| Case opinions | |
| appeal allowed | |
| Concurrence | McHugh, Kirby JJ, Gummow, Hayne JJ |
| Dissent | Gleeson CJ Callinan, Heydon JJ |
Appellant S395/2002 v MIMA is a decision of the High Court of Australia.[1]
The case is important to refugee law in Australia, especially for its elaboration upon legal principles as they apply to LGBTIQ asylum seekers.
Appellant S395 is the 21st most cited High Court case according to LawCite.[2][3]
.jpg)
The appellants were two gay Bangladeshi men. Whilst in Australia they applied for refugee visas. They argued that they had a well-founded fear of persecution as members of a particular social group, if forced to return to Bangladesh.[4]
A Ministerial delegate found that if the men kept their relationship a secret, they would not suffer any serious harm; and so refused them visas for having failed to take reasonable steps to avoid harm. The Tribunal affirmed this decision to refuse them protection visas. The decision was affirmed again at review before the RRT.[4]
Appeals to the Federal Court and Full Federal Court were dismissed. They then were granted special leave to appeal at the High Court.[4]