AJM20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 1443

AJM20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 1443

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant did not show that the primary judgment was attended with sufficient doubt or that substantial injustice would result if leave were refused. The proposed grounds were unparticularised and unsupported, the primary judge had considered the complaints made about the Tribunal's decision, and no jurisdictional error, procedural unfairness or other appealable error was established.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Migration Application for Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Decision Dismissing an Application for Judicial Review / Application for Leave to Appeal in the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs; first respondent's name changed.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'procedural Fairness' 'leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Decision' 'summary Dismissal at Show Cause Hearing']
['migration' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'procedural Fairness' 'leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Decision' 'summary Dismissal at Show Cause Hearing']

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 an Interlocutory Decision Dismissing an Application for Judicial Review / Application for Leave to Appeal in the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the interlocutory decision was attended with sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration on appeal.' 'Whether substantial injustice would result if leave to appeal were refused, assuming the primary judgment was wrong.' "Whether the primary judge failed to consider alleged jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decision." "Whether the primary judge failed to consider alleged legal and factual errors in the Tribunal's decision." 'Whether the applicant should have leave to raise a new procedural fairness ground in the draft notice of appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant did not show that the primary judgment was attended with sufficient doubt or that substantial injustice would result if leave were refused. The proposed grounds were unparticularised and unsupported, the primary judge had considered the complaints made about the Tribunal's decision, and no jurisdictional error, procedural unfairness or other appealable error was established.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs; first respondent's name changed.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the first respondent's costs." 'The first respondent\'s name be changed to "Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs".']