C7A/2017 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2020] FCAFC 63

C7A/2017 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2020] FCAFC 63

The appeal was dismissed because, although the primary judge should have addressed the procedural fairness point, the appellants failed to show denial of procedural fairness, non-compliance with s 425(1), or practical injustice: the children were represented by a migration agent, no objection or request for their evidence was shown, and no material evidence they would have given was identified. The Tribunal separately considered the children's claims and found they were not stateless and could live in Indonesia. The Tribunal had no real doubt about its findings that the first appellant was Indonesian and that all appellants had or could obtain Indonesian citizenship or a right to enter...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal Concerning Refusal of Protection Visas and Judicial Review of Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision / Appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court From Dismissal of Federal Circuit Court Applications for Judicial Review
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'temporary Protection Visa' 'stateless Rohingya Claims' 'indonesian Citizenship and Right to Enter and Reside' 'section 425 Hearing Obligation' 'jurisdictional Error' 'legal Unreasonableness' 'adequacy of Reasons']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'procedural Fairness'] ['protection Visa' 'temporary Protection Visa' 'stateless Rohingya Claims' 'indonesian Citizenship and Right to Enter and Reside' 'section 425 Hearing Obligation' 'jurisdictional Error' 'legal Unreasonableness' 'adequacy of Reasons']

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 Concerning Refusal of Protection Visas and Judicial Review of Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision / Appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court From Dismissal of Federal Circuit Court Applications for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the primary judge failed to determine whether the Tribunal denied procedural fairness to the second and third appellants or failed to comply with s 425(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).' 'Whether the Tribunal lawfully heard, considered and determined the separate protection claims advanced for the second and third appellants.' "Whether the Tribunal was required to consider what would happen if the appellants were unable to enter or reside in Indonesia, or if its findings about the first appellant's identity were wrong." 'Whether the Tribunal failed to consider UNHCR material favourable to the appellants and whether its use of UNHCR material was legally unreasonable.' "Whether the Tribunal's findings about the first appellant's father's name and the appellants' Indonesian citizenship or right to enter and reside in Indonesia were legally unreasonable." 'Whether the primary judge gave adequate reasons for dismissing the judicial review grounds.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because, although the primary judge should have addressed the procedural fairness point, the appellants failed to show denial of procedural fairness, non-compliance with s 425(1), or practical injustice: the children were represented by a migration agent, no objection or request for their evidence was shown, and no material evidence they would have given was identified. The Tribunal separately considered the children's claims and found they were not stateless and could live in Indonesia. The Tribunal had no real doubt about its findings that the first appellant was Indonesian and that all appellants had or could obtain Indonesian citizenship or a right to enter...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The first appellant pay the first respondent's costs."]