DFY19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 1226

DFY19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 1226

The Tribunal found no relevant risk of harm in the places to which the appellants were likely to return and therefore was not obliged to consider relocation within Nigeria. The Tribunal also considered the appellants' claims concerning female genital mutilation, including country information and customary law, and rejected them after adverse credibility findings. The appellants established no error by the primary judge, so the appeal was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal Concerning Refusal of Protection Visas / Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Judgment Dismissing an Application to Quash a Decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
['protection Visas' 'jurisdictional Error' 'relocation Within Country of Nationality' 'female Genital Mutilation' 'failure to Consider Evidence' 'proper, Genuine and Realistic Consideration']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visas' 'jurisdictional Error' 'relocation Within Country of Nationality' 'female Genital Mutilation' 'failure to Consider Evidence' 'proper, Genuine and Realistic Consideration']

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 / Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Judgment Dismissing an Application to Quash a Decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Tribunal was required to make a finding as to the reasonableness and practicability of the appellants living in another state of Nigeria away from the first appellant's family" "Whether the Tribunal failed to consider an important item of evidence or failed to engage in proper, genuine and realistic consideration of the appellants' claim concerning pressure from relatives to have female genital mutilation performed on the appellant children"]

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found no relevant risk of harm in the places to which the appellants were likely to return and therefore was not obliged to consider relocation within Nigeria. The Tribunal also considered the appellants' claims concerning female genital mutilation, including country information and customary law, and rejected them after adverse credibility findings. The appellants established no error by the primary judge, so the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellants pay the first respondent's costs as agreed or taxed."]