AAV15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 476

AAV15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 476

The appellant's pleaded grounds, which challenged the applicability of WZAPN and SZTAL, were unarguable and could not succeed; his further oral submissions about risk on return to Sri Lanka invited impermissible merits review, which the Court could not undertake. The appeal therefore had to be dismissed with costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court Refusing Constitutional Writ Relief in Respect of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of a Protection Visa / Appeal to the Federal Court Dismissed
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'constitutional Writ Relief' 'failed Asylum Seeker' 'illegal Departure From Sri Lanka' 'complementary Protection' 'merits Review']
['administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights' 'migration Law'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'constitutional Writ Relief' 'failed Asylum Seeker' 'illegal Departure From Sri Lanka' 'complementary Protection' 'merits Review']

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

Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court Refusing Constitutional Writ Relief in Respect of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of a Protection Visa / Appeal to the Federal Court Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the appellant's grounds challenging the applicability of Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v WZAPN (2015) 254 CLR 610 and SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) 347 ALR 405 were arguable" "Whether the Court could consider the appellant's assertions that he would be at risk of harm if returned to Sri Lanka"]

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's pleaded grounds, which challenged the applicability of WZAPN and SZTAL, were unarguable and could not succeed; his further oral submissions about risk on return to Sri Lanka invited impermissible merits review, which the Court could not undertake. The appeal therefore had to be dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the first respondent's costs."]