CPM16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1475

CPM16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1475

The appeal was dismissed because the first ground was misconceived and without merit: it had not been raised below, was unparticularised, the primary judge had considered the reasonableness of the Tribunal's findings and the alleged misconstruction or misapplication of law, and s 91R was irrelevant because the Tribunal rejected the factual claim that the appellants would suffer harm in Malaysia. The second ground also failed because the appellants did not identify any legal or factual errors in the Tribunal's decision which the primary judge failed to consider, and the primary judge dealt with the grounds and oral submissions raised at first instance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal From a Decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Dismissing an Application for Judicial Review of an Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of Protection (class Xa) Visas / Appeal to the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; appellants ordered to pay the first respondent's costs as agreed or assessed.
Legal Topics
['protection Visas' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'reasonableness' 'credibility Findings' 'section 91 R of the Migration Act 1958 (cth)' 'complementary Protection' 'procedural Fairness']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visas' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'reasonableness' 'credibility Findings' 'section 91 R of the Migration Act 1958 (cth)' 'complementary Protection' 'procedural Fairness']

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 a Decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Dismissing an Application for Judicial Review of an Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of Protection (class Xa) Visas / Appeal to the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the primary judge erred by not holding that the Tribunal acted in a manifestly unreasonable way in dealing with the appellants' claims." 'Whether the primary judge erred by not holding that the Tribunal failed to consider persecution and harm under s 91R of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).' 'Whether the primary judge erred by not holding that the Tribunal misconstrued or misapplied the relevant law.' "Whether the primary judge failed to consider legal and factual errors in the Tribunal's decision."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the first ground was misconceived and without merit: it had not been raised below, was unparticularised, the primary judge had considered the reasonableness of the Tribunal's findings and the alleged misconstruction or misapplication of law, and s 91R was irrelevant because the Tribunal rejected the factual claim that the appellants would suffer harm in Malaysia. The second ground also failed because the appellants did not identify any legal or factual errors in the Tribunal's decision which the primary judge failed to consider, and the primary judge dealt with the grounds and oral submissions raised at first instance.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; appellants ordered to pay the first respondent's costs as agreed or assessed.

Orders

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