Institute for Migrant Rights
Railway line at Cianjur station, c. 1890 · KITLV, CC BY 4.0

Migration Jurisprudence from the South › Australia

Plaintiff M70/2011 v. Minister for Immigration (Malaysia arrangement)

High Court of Australia · Australia · 2011-08-31 · National court

Citation: [2011] HCA 32
Type of case: Administrative
Outcome: Decided for the migrant side

Question

Could Australia send asylum seekers to Malaysia under a swap arrangement?

What the court decided

No. The Minister’s declaration was invalid because Malaysia was not legally bound to provide the protections the Migration Act required.

In plain language

Australia agreed to send 800 asylum seekers to Malaysia in exchange for refugees. The High Court said this was unlawful because Malaysia was not bound to protect them.

Dalam bahasa sederhana

Australia sepakat mengirim 800 pencari suaka ke Malaysia sebagai tukar dengan pengungsi. Pengadilan Tinggi menyatakan ini tidak sah karena Malaysia tidak terikat untuk melindungi mereka.

Pertanyaan: Bisakah Australia mengirim pencari suaka ke Malaysia lewat pengaturan pertukaran?

What happened afterwards

  • 2011-07: Arrangement signed.
  • 2011-08-31: Declaration held invalid.

Sources

Open this decision in the interactive collection (compare, filter, Indonesian view, downloads).

Cite as: Institute for Migrant Rights (2026), Migration Jurisprudence from the South, version 0.1, https://theimr.org/court-decisions/d/au-m70-2011/. This page summarizes a court decision for research and advocacy; it is not legal advice.

For researchers

This collection of decisions is built for empirical legal scholarship and socio-legal research on migration and the rights of migrant workers, as well as for advocacy.

The coded variables support statistical analysis in law: cross-national comparison, regression and event-history designs, and law and economics questions such as how recruitment fees, wage protection and limits on changing employer affect migrant workers. The data can be downloaded for replication.

Keywords: case law; jurisprudence; judicial decisions; comparative constitutional law; courts and migration; judicial behavior; litigation outcomes; refugee law; non-refoulement; citizenship and nationality; empirical legal studies; empirical legal scholarship; quantitative legal research; statistical analysis in law; law and economics; law and economics of migration; comparative law; socio-legal studies; legal pluralism; migration law; labor migration; migrant workers’ rights; human rights law; access to justice; Global South; Asia; Africa; Middle East; Latin America; Indonesia; open data; replication data.