GPC18 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 297

GPC18 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 297

Leave to appeal was refused because none of the proposed grounds showed that the Federal Circuit Court decision was attended with sufficient doubt or that substantial injustice would result if leave were refused. The Tribunal had considered complementary protection and, after rejecting the factual claims as not credible, had no separate factual foundation on which complementary protection could operate. No denial of procedural fairness before either the Tribunal or the Federal Circuit Court was identified, and the alleged finding that the applicants would not be harmed was only an unsupported assertion of factual error.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Migration Application for Leave to Appeal From a Federal Circuit Court of Australia Summary Dismissal of an Application for Judicial Review / Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed; adult applicants ordered to pay the first respondent's costs as assessed or agreed.
Legal Topics
['protection Visas' 'complementary Protection' 'procedural Fairness' 'jurisdictional Error' 'summary Dismissal' 'leave to Appeal']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'judicial Review'] ['protection Visas' 'complementary Protection' 'procedural Fairness' 'jurisdictional Error' 'summary Dismissal' 'leave to Appeal']

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 Application for Leave to Appeal From a Federal Circuit Court of Australia Summary Dismissal of an Application for Judicial Review / Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Federal Circuit Court erred in finding that it was open to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to find that there were no claims on which it could assess complementary protection after rejecting the applicants' factual claims as not credible" 'Whether the applicants were denied procedural fairness before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal' 'Whether the applicants were denied procedural fairness before the Federal Circuit Court of Australia' 'Whether an asserted factual error about risk of harm on return identified any jurisdictional error or appealable error']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because none of the proposed grounds showed that the Federal Circuit Court decision was attended with sufficient doubt or that substantial injustice would result if leave were refused. The Tribunal had considered complementary protection and, after rejecting the factual claims as not credible, had no separate factual foundation on which complementary protection could operate. No denial of procedural fairness before either the Tribunal or the Federal Circuit Court was identified, and the alleged finding that the applicants would not be harmed was only an unsupported assertion of factual error.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed; adult applicants ordered to pay the first respondent's costs as assessed or agreed.

Orders

  • ['The first applicant be appointed as litigation representative of his third applicant minor daughter and for that purpose the rules in Part 9, Division 9.6 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) be varied or dispensed with as necessary.' 'Paragraph 3 of the affidavit of the first applicant affirmed 19 September 2019...