Date of judgement: 23 August 2001
Court: Federal Court of Australia
Citation(s): [2001] FCA 1156
Short summary
The Federal Court of Australia confirmed that internal relocation must be considered separately from the question of whether a well-founded fear of persecution exists in evaluating claims for protection under the 1951 Refugee Convention.
Summary by: Joseph Lavelle Wilson
Weight of decision
This decision of the Federal Court bears moderate weight in the Commonwealth of Australia.
Key facts
Ahmed Dahir Hagi-Mohamed, a citizen of Somalia, arrived in Australia on 15 September 1995. He filed an application for a protection visa under s. 36 of the Australian Migration Act 1958 (Cth) in November 1995, claiming that the Australian government had an obligation to protect him under the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 (the Convention). The basis of his application was that he had a well-founded fear of persecution in his home country of Somalia, due to his membership of several social groups.
Hagi-Mohamed claimed that he was a member of the particular social group (that of homosexual men), as well as a member of two clans – the Geledi clan and the Hawadle clan.
Previous instances
The Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs and the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) rejected the application for protection. The RRT accepted that each group identified by Hagi-Mohamed was in fact a particular social group, and that he belonged to each one. The RRT found that the motivating reason for the persecution of Geledi clan members by Somalian militias was to take resources from the Geledi clan, specifically arable land and crops, rather than for the reason that they were members of the Geledi clan. The RRT also found that Hagi-Mohamed’s association with his mother’s clan, the Hawadle, did not put him at risk of persecution because there was evidence that other parts of Somalia were controlled by the Hawadle and he could be safe there. With respect to Hagi-Mohamed’s claim based on his homosexuality, the RRT found that although he did belong to the cognisable social group, that group did not face danger rising to the level of persecution under the Convention.
Hagi-Mohamed appealed to the Federal Court of Australia. Justice Stone issued a decision in favour of the government, which was subsequently appealed by Hagi-Mohamed and heard by Justices Wilcox, Weinberg, and Hely in the Federal Court of Australia.
Continued on the next page…