JKJ: I'll show you where it is, for a worthwhile little stake to make it interesting: shall we say $10,000?

You just give me Part, Para & Line. If you ARE right I will apologize.

JB: I have combed the ACT through & through & the way it is written doesn't make it Law.

Still, The Law Profession have a habit of turning things in the Laws to suit their own definitions. Especially when there is no Definition in an Act that describes a Word of Phrase. Depends on whose paying & how much &, of course, the agreements between all Parties that are made in the Judges Chamber a few days before the Case is heard, eh.

Oooooh, allllllllright, I'll show you.

But before I do, just think. If you were right that the Convention definition was "not law", then why would the High Court have made such decisions against the gumment as the one knocking down the Malaysia Solution? Why would the main migration workload of the Federal Court be refugee cases?

The missing pieces of the puzzle are:
Section 41, Conditions on visas
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/s41.html

Section 504, Regulations
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/s504.html

and then, criteria for the grant of a protection visa:
...
(2) The Minister is satisfied that the applicant is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention:

in Schedule 2 of the Regulation:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/mr1994227/sch2.html

Okay, settle it. What about a slab of beer and we call it quits?

JKJ: Section 41, Conditions on visas
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/s41.html

This section talks about "Conditions on Visas" Nothing to do with UNCHR Convention & Protocols. It does not even mention the UNCHR Convention & Protocols.

JKJ: Section 504, Regulations
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/s504.html

There is nothing in this section that relates to the UNCHR Conventions & Protocols. It does not even mention the UNCHR Convention & Protocols.

JKJ: in Schedule 2 of the Regulation:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/mr1994227/sch2.html
2) The Minister is satisfied that the applicant is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention:

I did a search for this it didn't come up. I put in, "The Minister is satisfied that" Lots of stuff came up, but not that. So I did a visual myself & still found nothing like it.

164.227 The Minister is satisfied that:
(a) the applicant is the holder of a valid passport that:
(i) was issued to the applicant by an official source; and
(ii) is in the form issued by the official source; or
(b) it would be unreasonable to require the applicant to be the holder of a passport.
I guess this does not relate to Boat People.

203.222 (2) If the application includes a proposal by an approved proposing organisation, the Minister is satisfied that there are compelling reasons for giving special consideration to granting the applicant a permanent visa, having regard to:

(a) the degree of persecution to which the applicant is subject in the applicant's home country; and
(b) the extent of the applicant's connection with Australia; and
(c) whether or not there is any suitable country available, other than Australia, that can provide for the applicant's settlement and protection from persecution; and
(d) the capacity of the approved proposing organisation to provide for the permanent settlement of the applicant in Australia.

No mention of the UNCHR C & P

1 of 3. Cont.

2 of 3. Cont.
204.211A If the application includes a proposal by an approved proposing organisation:
(a) the applicant is a female person who is subject to persecution, or registered as being of concern to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and is living in a country other than the applicant's home country; and
(b) the proposal is not made on behalf of another person who is mentioned in sub regulation 2.07AM(5); and
(c) the applicant is still proposed by the approved proposing organisation.
A mention of the HC for R as being "concerned" but no UNCHR C & P

204.224 (1) If the application does not include a proposal by an approved proposing organisation, the Minister is satisfied that there are compelling reasons for giving special consideration to granting the applicant a permanent visa, having regard to:
(a) in the case of an applicant who met the requirements of subclause 204.211(2) at the time of application--the extent of the applicant's connection with Australia; or
(b) in any other case--the following:
(i) the degree of persecution to which the applicant is subject in the applicant's home country; and
(ii) the extent of the applicant's connection with Australia; and
(iii) whether or not there is any suitable country available, other than Australia, that can provide for the applicant's settlement and protection from persecution; and
(iv) the capacity of the Australian community to provide for the permanent settlement of persons such as the applicant in Australia.
Note 204.224 (1) (b) (iv) & (2) (c) (d)

(2 of 3. Cont.

I admire your persistence Jayb.

The phrase "(2) The Minister is satisfied that the applicant is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention"
is in the Regulation at 866, about 90% of the way down the page of that link to the Regulation.

The "Refugees Convention" is defined in section 5 of the Act to refer to the UN Convention relating to the status of refugees, done in 1951.

Whether the Convention gives rise to "protection obligations" is determined by:
a) the text of the Convention - 'well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, and political opinion'
b) the common law in interpreting the Convention, e.g. are homosexuals 'a particular social group', and
c) the additional sections of the Migration Act that you referred to.

But the point is, the effect of the whole thing is to incorporate the Convention definition of refugee into Australian migration law, and make it a condition for the grant of a protection visa. It's incorrect to assert it's "not law", which is why the High Court treats it as law, and as binding on the gumment.

You are one of the few people who has taken the trouble to understand it.

3 of 3. Cont.

416.322 The Minister is satisfied that the applicant has:
(a) adequate means to support himself or herself; or
(b) access to adequate means to support himself or herself;
taking into account the applicant's work rights during the period of the applicant's stay in Australia.

Aid? interesting.

462.215 The Minister is satisfied that the applicant has at least functional English.
Interesting?

786.224 The applicant satisfies public interest criterion 4001 or, if the applicant is unable to satisfy that criterion because the appropriate inquiries have not been completed, the applicant declares in writing, to the satisfaction of the Minister, that the applicant:
(a) does not have a criminal record; and
(b) is not a terrorist; and
(c) has not engaged in crimes against humanity or war crimes; and
(d) will assist Immigration by attempting to obtain any relevant records relating to the applicant.
Interesting?
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/mr1994227/sch2.html
Provisions with respect to the grant of Subclasses of visas.

This whole set of Regulations has nothing to do with the UNCHR C & P.

Migration Act 1958. Act No. 62 of 1958 as amended. Volume 1 & 2
288 Application for registration
288A Publishing requirement
288B Requiring applicants to make statutory declarations or to answer questions.