ADD15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1369

ADD15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1369

The Tribunal did not apply the wrong legal test when considering the appellant’s complementary protection claim under s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth); it considered all relevant evidence and was not satisfied that there was a real risk of significant harm to the appellant upon return to Sri Lanka. Accordingly, the primary judge did not err in dismissing the application for judicial review.

Parties
Appellant: ADD15; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Border Protection; Second Respondent: Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Complementary Protection, Protection Visa, Judicial Review, Application of Migration Act 1958 (cth) S 36
Migration Law Administrative Law Complementary Protection Protection Visa Judicial Review Application of Migration Act 1958 (cth) S 36

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ADD15

Appellant

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

First Respondent

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal applied the wrong test when considering complementary protection under s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal failed to consider relevant information in deciding if there was a real risk of significant harm on return to Sri Lanka

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not apply the wrong legal test when considering the appellant’s complementary protection claim under s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth); it considered all relevant evidence and was not satisfied that there was a real risk of significant harm to the appellant upon return to Sri Lanka. Accordingly, the primary judge did not err in dismissing the application for judicial review.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed.
  • The appellant pay the first respondent's costs, as agreed or assessed.