ADA18 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCA 371

ADA18 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCA 371

The appellant's claim that her mother’s experience of FGM was part of her basis for protection was not advanced or material to her fear of persecution and, in any case, was not supported by credible evidence. The Tribunal considered all claims necessary for determination and made findings rejecting the factual bases for the appellant’s claims. Accordingly, there was no jurisdictional error and the appeal must be dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: ADA18; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs; Second Respondent: Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia to the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review of Migration Decisions, Refugee Status, Protection Visa, Female Genital Mutilation, Well Founded Fear of Persecution, Particular Social Group, Tribunal Duty to Consider Claims
Administrative Law Migration Law Human Rights Judicial Review of Migration Decisions Refugee Status Protection Visa Female Genital Mutilation Well Founded Fear of Persecution +2 more

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

Parties

ADA18

Appellant

Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

First Respondent

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia to the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal failed to consider and deal with an essential element of the appellant's claims for protection
  2. 2 Whether the primary judge erred in finding that the Tribunal did not fail to consider the appellant's claim of a well-founded fear of persecution as a member of a particular social group

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's claim that her mother’s experience of FGM was part of her basis for protection was not advanced or material to her fear of persecution and, in any case, was not supported by credible evidence. The Tribunal considered all claims necessary for determination and made findings rejecting the factual bases for the appellant’s claims. Accordingly, there was no jurisdictional error and the appeal must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed.
  • The appellant pay the costs of the first respondent, such costs to be fixed in the sum of $4,853.