AKD15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 166

AKD15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 166

The proposed new ground of appeal was without merit and leave to raise it should be refused. Unlike SZUBX, the third respondent did not conduct an interview in a deflected manner or focus on the appellant's disagreement with earlier findings. The ITOA process was directed to whether Australia's non-refoulement obligations were engaged as a result of the Data Breach, gave the appellant a real and genuine opportunity to respond, and assessed his claims arising from the Data Breach. No appellable error was shown in the Federal Circuit Court's judgment, so the appeal was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia / Appeal Against Dismissal of Application for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Concerning an International Treaties Obligation Assessment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; appellant to pay the respondents' costs as agreed or taxed.
Legal Topics
['protection Claims' 'international Treaties Obligation Assessment' 'non Refoulement Obligations' 'data Breach' 'procedural Fairness' 'jurisdictional Error' 'leave to Raise New Ground on Appeal']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'human Rights'] ['protection Claims' 'international Treaties Obligation Assessment' 'non Refoulement Obligations' 'data Breach' 'procedural Fairness' 'jurisdictional Error' 'leave to Raise New Ground on 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 Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia / Appeal Against Dismissal of Application for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Concerning an International Treaties Obligation Assessment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellant should be granted leave to raise a new ground of appeal not raised before the Federal Circuit Court.' 'Whether the third respondent misdirected himself or asked the wrong question in conducting the ITOA by focusing on previous adverse findings rather than assessing the consequences of the Data Breach.' 'Whether the ITOA process denied the appellant procedural fairness.' "Whether SZUBX v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor [2015] FCCA 2822 applied to the appellant's case."]

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed new ground of appeal was without merit and leave to raise it should be refused. Unlike SZUBX, the third respondent did not conduct an interview in a deflected manner or focus on the appellant's disagreement with earlier findings. The ITOA process was directed to whether Australia's non-refoulement obligations were engaged as a result of the Data Breach, gave the appellant a real and genuine opportunity to respond, and assessed his claims arising from the Data Breach. No appellable error was shown in the Federal Circuit Court's judgment, so the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; appellant to pay the respondents' costs as agreed or taxed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the respondents' costs as agreed or taxed."]