AZH15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 97

AZH15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 97

In light of binding Full Court authority, there was no jurisdictional error by the Tribunal in considering only the s 36(2)(aa) complementary protection criterion, and not s 36(2)(a), given s 48A's application and the applicants' prior unsuccessful protection visa applications.

Parties
First Applicant: AZH15; Second Applicant: AZI15; Third Applicant: AZJ15; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Border Protection; Second Respondent: Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal Decision From Federal Circuit Court of Australia
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Protection Visas, Jurisdictional Error, Section 36(2)(a) and 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act, Bar on Further Protection Visa Applications, Complementary Protection
Migration Law Administrative Law Protection Visas Jurisdictional Error Section 36(2)(a) and 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act Bar on Further Protection Visa Applications Complementary Protection

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AZH15

First Applicant

AZI15

Second Applicant

AZJ15

Third Applicant

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

First Respondent

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal Decision From Federal Circuit Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal made a jurisdictional error by failing to consider both s 36(2)(a) and s 36(2)(aa) in protection visa assessment where applicants previously unsuccessfully applied before s 36(2)(aa) was enacted.

Ratio Decidendi

In light of binding Full Court authority, there was no jurisdictional error by the Tribunal in considering only the s 36(2)(aa) complementary protection criterion, and not s 36(2)(a), given s 48A's application and the applicants' prior unsuccessful protection visa applications.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The first applicant is appointed as litigation guardian of the third applicant, a minor.
  • The solicitor for the applicant must file a notice of acting by the end of the day.