澳大利亚高等法院
2011年8月31日
原告M70/2011 对簿 移民与公民事务部部长
原告M106/2011（由其诉讼监护人代表），原告M70/2011 对簿 移民与公民事务部部长
（2011） HCA 32
移民与公民事务部部长所作宣告 – 由圣诞岛入境澳大利亚的寻求避难的人士能遣送至马来西亚进行其难民申请，高等法院今确定其无效。合议庭经加急聆讯后多数决定，高院原作的禁令 – 限制部长将约四星期前抵达圣诞岛的寻求避难的人士中的两人遣送至马来西亚，今成为永久判决。
法院还决定，18岁以下无人陪同的寻求避难的人士，如无部长根据移民法（儿童监护权）1946（Cth）所作的书面同意，不可遣离澳洲。法院颁布禁令，限制部长将第二原告，一年龄为16岁的阿富汗公民，在没有此同意前遣离澳大利亚。
法庭认为，根据移民法1958（Cth）第198A条款，除非此国家有法律约束可满足三个条件，否则部长不可宣布此国为寻求避难人士在等待避难申请处理时可被遣送往的国度。此三条件为：此国家必须接受国际法律约束或自身有国内立法，能为寻求避难人士提供有效渠道，审核其保护需求；此国能在寻求避难人士等候难民身份决定期间为其提供保护；以及此国能为已经确认难民身份的人士在等候自动回归其本土国或等候到他国重定居时为其提供保护。除此以外，移民法还要求该国家在提供保护时须符合某些人权标准。
法庭还认为，移民法并无授予移民部长其他权力，部长不可将保护申请尚未得到最后决定的寻求避难的人士遣离澳大利亚。他们只能够被遣送至符合s 198A条款的国家，即这些国家能够提供递交保护申请的渠道，能提供保护，而且符合上述的标准。移民法（特别是s 198条款）规定的对“非法非公民”进行遣离的基本权力在此情况下不适用，因为移民法对此种情况做出了特别的规定：由海路进入的寻求避难的人士，而且其避难申请未有他国经办时，澳大利亚政府必须接受此类寻求避难的人士。而且对遣送至的国度有特别的法律条件的限制。
基于双方均认同的事实，法庭认为，马来西亚无法律约束，可以不为申请避难的人士提供移民法所要求的避难申请渠道和保护，因此无法有效宣布为可遣送国。马来西亚也不是难民协议签署方。部长于2011年7月25日与马来西亚内务部长签署的协议也明确表示此协议无法律约束力。双方均同意，马来西亚不受任何法律约束，也无需在其国内法律中认可难民的身份。双方同意，马来西亚本身并不进行任何与寻求避难的人士和难民有关的活动，如接待、登记、记录或身份确定。双方同意的是，马来西亚允许联合国难民组织（“UNHCR”）在马来西亚进行这些活动，并在UNHCR进行这些活动的时候允许寻求避难的人士留在马来西亚。
法院强调，在决定部长的马来西亚宣告是否有效时，对马来西亚在寻求避难人士和难民的处理中实际上是否符合了相关人权标准，或在马国的寻求避难的人士是否得到公平或合适的待遇，法院对此并无表达意见。法院的决定基础是，部长在根据 s 198A作出宣告前必须符合要求。
•此声明不用于替代高等法院作出决定的理由，也不用于未来作出决定的理由。
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
31 August 2011
PLAINTIFF M70/2011 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
PLAINTIFF M106 OF 2011 BY HIS LITIGATION GUARDIAN, PLAINTIFF M70/2011 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
(2011) HCA 32
Today the High Court held invalid the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship’s declaration of Malaysia as a country to which asylum seekers who entered Australia at Christmas Island can be taken for processing of their asylum claims. After an expedited hearing before the Full Bench, the Court by majority made permanent the injunctions that had been granted earlier and restrained the Minister from taking to Malaysia two asylum seekers who arrived at Christmas Island, as part of a larger group, less than four weeks ago.
The Court also decided that an unaccompanied asylum seeker who is under 18 years of age may not lawfully be taken from Australia without the Minister’s written consent under the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946 (Cth). The Court granted an injunction restraining the Minister from removing the second plaintiff, an Afghan citizen aged 16, from Australia without that consent.
The Court held that, under s 198A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), the Minister cannot validly declare a country (as a country to which asylum seekers can be taken for processing) unless that country is legally bound to meet three criteria. The country must be legally bound by international law or its own domestic law to: provide access for asylum seekers to effective procedures for assessing their need for protection; provide protection for asylum seekers pending determination of their refugee status; and provide protection for persons given refugee status pending their voluntary return to their country of origin or their resettlement in another country. In addition to these criteria, the Migration Act requires that the country meet certain human rights standards in providing that protection.
The Court also held that the Minister has no other power under the Migration Act to remove from Australia asylum seekers whose claims for protection have not been determined. They can only be taken to a country validly declared under s 198A to be a country that provides the access and the protections and meets the standards described above. The general powers of removal of “unlawful non-citizens” given by the Migration Act (in particular s 198) cannot be used when the Migration Act has made specific particular statutory criteria that the country of removal must meet.
On the facts which the parties agreed, the Court held that Malaysia is not legally bound to provide the access and protections the Migration Act requires for a valid declaration. Malaysia is not a party to the Refugees Convention or its Protocol. The Arrangement which the Minister signed with the Malaysian Minister for Home Affairs on 25 July 2011 said expressly that it was not legally binding. The parties agreed that Malaysia is not legally bound to, and does not recognize the status of refugee in its domestic law. They agreed that Malaysia does not itself undertake any activities related to the reception, registration, documentation or status determination of asylum seekers and refugees. Rather, the parties agreed, Malaysia permits the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“UNHCR”) to undertake those activities in Malaysia and allows asylum seekers to remain in Malaysia while UNHCR does so.
The Court emphasized that, in deciding whether the Minister’s declaration of Malaysia was valid, it expressed no view about whether Malaysia in fact meets relevant human rights standards in dealing with asylum seekers or refugees or whether asylum seekers in that country are treated fairly or appropriately. The Court’s decision was based upon the criteria which the Minister must apply before he could make a declaration under s 198A.
•This statement is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the High Court or to be used in any later consideration of the Court’s reasons.
CJ - The translator's Blog 