CPZ16 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 1204

CPZ16 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 1204

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed as there was no reasonably arguable error identified in the decision of the Federal Circuit Court, and the grounds raised were either considered and rejected by the Tribunal, were too general or vague, or disclosed no merit.

Parties
First Applicant: CPZ16; Second Applicant: CQE16; Third Applicant: CQC16; Fourth Applicant: CQB16; First Respondent: Minister for Home Affairs; Second Respondent: Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Judgment on Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Application for Leave to Appeal, Interlocutory Decisions, Judicial Review, Protection Visas, Jurisdictional Error
Migration Law Administrative Law Application for Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Decisions Judicial Review Protection Visas Jurisdictional Error

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CPZ16

First Applicant

CQE16

Second Applicant

CQC16

Third Applicant

CQB16

Fourth Applicant

Minister for Home Affairs

First Respondent

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Judgment on Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a reasonably arguable error in the Federal Circuit Court's decision refusing reinstatement of the applicants’ proceeding for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal failed to consider all claims and evidence relevant to protection visa applications

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed as there was no reasonably arguable error identified in the decision of the Federal Circuit Court, and the grounds raised were either considered and rejected by the Tribunal, were too general or vague, or disclosed no merit.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application be dismissed with costs.
  • The first and second applicants pay the first respondent's costs, to be assessed in default of agreement.