BIY17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1914

BIY17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1914

The appeal had no substance because the Tribunal had considered and rejected the husband's claims and the derivative claim concerning his wife, no claim based on the husband's actual political opinion had been made, and the Tribunal expressly considered and rejected the imputed political opinion/Razakar claim. The second appellant's appeal was also dismissed because she was absent when the appeal was called on and r 36.75(1) applied.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court / Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; the appeal of the second appellant dismissed pursuant to r 36.75(1) of the Federal Court Rules.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'judicial Review' 'administrative Appeals Tribunal' 'failure to Consider Claims' 'jurisdictional Error' 'federal Court Appeal Procedure']
['migration' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa' 'judicial Review' 'administrative Appeals Tribunal' 'failure to Consider Claims' 'jurisdictional Error' 'federal Court Appeal Procedure']

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 the Federal Circuit Court / Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the primary judge erred in failing to find that the Tribunal failed to consider a claim that the wife would suffer sexual harassment and assault.' "Whether the Tribunal failed to consider a claim based on the husband's actual, as opposed to perceived, political opinion." 'Whether the Tribunal failed to consider a claim of imputed political opinion based on alleged support for Jamaat and being described as a Razakar.' "Whether the second appellant's appeal should be dismissed under r 36.75(1) of the Federal Court Rules because she was absent when the appeal was called on for hearing."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal had no substance because the Tribunal had considered and rejected the husband's claims and the derivative claim concerning his wife, no claim based on the husband's actual political opinion had been made, and the Tribunal expressly considered and rejected the imputed political opinion/Razakar claim. The second appellant's appeal was also dismissed because she was absent when the appeal was called on and r 36.75(1) applied.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; the appeal of the second appellant dismissed pursuant to r 36.75(1) of the Federal Court Rules.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed with costs with the appeal of the second appellant being dismissed pursuant to r 36.75(1) of the Federal Court Rules.']