Refugee Status in Australia and the Cessation Provisions

Abstract

The Federal Court of Australia decision of QAAH of 2004 v MIMIA, currently under appeal in the High Court of Australia, raises the issue how art IC(5) of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees ('the Refugees Convention') applies in the context of Australia's temporary protection visa (TPV) regime. The central questions in QAAH is whether a person who has been recognised as a refugee by the granting of a TPV and who is applying for a permanent protection visa (PPV) must re-establish de novo that they meet the requirements of the Refugees Convention definition (the position taken by Lander J in QAAH), or whether they remain a refugee unless the government can prove that circumstances have changed so as to active cessation (the majority's approach in QAAH). In this article, it is argued that the former option does not conform with Australia's obligations under the Refugees Convention.