MZZZH v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 819

MZZZH v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 819

The appeal failed because the only identified ground, breach of s 424A, was not made out: the country information relied on by the Tribunal was not specifically about the First Appellant and fell within s 424A(3)(a), and the Tribunal was not required to give advance written notice of its prospective credibility reasoning. No other basis supported the ground of appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal Concerning Refusal of a Protection (class Xa) Visa / Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Dismissing an Application for Judicial Review
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['protection (class Xa) Visa' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'migration Act 1958 (cth) S 424 A' 'adverse Information' 'country Information' 'credibility Findings']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['protection (class Xa) Visa' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'migration Act 1958 (cth) S 424 A' 'adverse Information' 'country Information' 'credibility Findings']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Migration Appeal Concerning Refusal of a Protection (class Xa) Visa / Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Dismissing an Application for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Federal Circuit Court erred in failing to find that the Tribunal breached s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) by using adverse information without disclosure.' 'Whether the Tribunal was required to give particulars of country information or invite comment on it.' "Whether the Tribunal was required to give advance written notice of its prospective reasoning that the First Appellant's claims were not credible."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the only identified ground, breach of s 424A, was not made out: the country information relied on by the Tribunal was not specifically about the First Appellant and fell within s 424A(3)(a), and the Tribunal was not required to give advance written notice of its prospective credibility reasoning. No other basis supported the ground of appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The name of the Second Respondent be changed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.' 'The appeal be dismissed.' 'The First Appellant pay the costs of the First Respondent.']