BZAHP v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2015] FCA 488

BZAHP v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2015] FCA 488

Leave to raise ground 1 was refused because the ground was not raised before the primary judge, no explanation was given for that omission, and the ground lacked merit: the Tribunal rejected the first appellant's claimed reasons for fearing persecution and therefore did not need to mention or consider s 91R. Ground 2 failed because the primary judge had considered and rejected the asserted errors, the Tribunal's adverse credibility findings were explained, and no jurisdictional error or error by the primary judge was shown.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal From Decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Concerning Refusal of Protection Visas / Appeal; Application for Leave to Raise a New Ground of Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal in terms of ground 1 refused; appeal otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Claims' 'fear of Persecution' 'political Opinion or Political Activity' 'credibility Findings' 'jurisdictional Error' 'manifest Unreasonableness' 'leave to Raise New Ground on Appeal' 'migration Act 1958 (cth) S 91 R']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Claims' 'fear of Persecution' 'political Opinion or Political Activity' 'credibility Findings' 'jurisdictional Error' 'manifest Unreasonableness' 'leave to Raise New Ground on Appeal' 'migration Act 1958 (cth) S 91 R']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Migration Appeal From Decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Concerning Refusal of Protection Visas / Appeal; Application for Leave to Raise a New Ground of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to raise for the first time on appeal a ground alleging the Tribunal acted in a manifestly unreasonable way and ignored s 91R of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).' "Whether the Tribunal was required to mention or consider s 91R of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) after rejecting the first appellant's claims and credibility." "Whether the Federal Circuit Court failed to consider asserted legal and factual errors in the Refugee Review Tribunal's decision." "Whether any jurisdictional error was evident in the Tribunal's decision."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to raise ground 1 was refused because the ground was not raised before the primary judge, no explanation was given for that omission, and the ground lacked merit: the Tribunal rejected the first appellant's claimed reasons for fearing persecution and therefore did not need to mention or consider s 91R. Ground 2 failed because the primary judge had considered and rejected the asserted errors, the Tribunal's adverse credibility findings were explained, and no jurisdictional error or error by the primary judge was shown.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal in terms of ground 1 refused; appeal otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal in terms of ground 1 of the Notice of Appeal be refused.' 'The appeal be otherwise dismissed.']