DQU16 v Minister for Home Affairs [2021] HCA 10 (07 April 2021) (Kiefel CJ, Keane, Gordon, Edelman and Steward JJ)


Catchwords:


Immigration – Visas – Application for protection visa – Where s 36(2) of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) provides two criteria for grant of protection visa – Where s 36(2)(a) provides refugee criterion – Where s 36(2)(aa) provides complementary protection criterion – Where Court in Appellant S395/2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2003) 216 CLR 473 (“Appellant S395”) held asylum seeker cannot be expected to hide or change behaviour manifesting protected characteristic under Refugees Convention for purposes of assessing claim under s 36(2)(a) – Where s 36(2)(aa) requires assessment of whether “significant harm” a “necessary and foreseeable consequence” of applicant’s return to receiving country – Where first appellant applied for protection visa under both ss 36(2)(a) and 36(2)(aa) – Where Immigration Assessment Authority found first appellant would modify behaviour on return to Iraq – Whether failure to consider principle in Appellant S395 under s 36(2)(aa) constituted jurisdictional error.

Words and phrases – “absolute and non-derogable”, “complementary protection”, “Convention Against Torture”, “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”, “innate or immutable characteristics”, “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”, “manifestation of a Convention characteristic”, “membership of a particular social group”, “modification of behaviour”, “necessary and foreseeable consequence”, “non-refoulement obligations”, “real chance”, “real risk”, “refugee”, “Refugees Convention”, “sale of alcohol”, “significant harm”, “well-founded fear of persecution”.