AFT18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 876

AFT18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 876

The primary judge did consider the claimed mistranslations or misinterpretations, but in the absence of any transcript or other evidence was not prepared to accept that they occurred. The appellants bore the onus of demonstrating jurisdictional error and did not do so; consequently no error was shown in the Federal Circuit Court judgment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal From Federal Circuit Court Judicial Review Concerning Refusal of Protection Visas / Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visas' 'procedural Fairness' 'mistranslation or Misinterpretation Before Tribunal' 'jurisdictional Error' '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 From Federal Circuit Court Judicial Review Concerning Refusal of Protection Visas / Appeal Dismissed

  1. 1 ['Whether the primary judge failed to consider the possibility of mistranslations or misinterpretations during the Tribunal hearing.' 'Whether the appellants established jurisdictional error based on alleged non-translations, mistranslations or misinterpretations in the absence of transcript or other evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The primary judge did consider the claimed mistranslations or misinterpretations, but in the absence of any transcript or other evidence was not prepared to accept that they occurred. The appellants bore the onus of demonstrating jurisdictional error and did not do so; consequently no error was shown in the Federal Circuit Court judgment.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' "The appellants pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal."]