Ali v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 140

Ali v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 140

Leave to rely on the proposed new grounds was refused because both grounds fell well short of sufficient merit. The Tribunal's assessment of the appellant's risk of recidivism was thorough, reasoned and logical, and it was permissible to consider the possibility of future domestic relationship stressors as part of assessing future risk. The Tribunal also considered the psychologist evidence in detail and was entitled, within its decisional freedom, to accept parts, reject parts, and determine the weight to be given to that evidence. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Migration Judicial Review Appeal / Appeal to the Full Court From Dismissal of an Application for Judicial Review; Application for Leave to Rely Upon New Grounds on Appeal
Outcome
Leave to file an amended notice of appeal and rely on new grounds was refused; the appeal was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['mandatory Visa Cancellation' 'revocation of Visa Cancellation' 'character Test' 'ministerial Direction 79' 'risk of Recidivism' 'leave to Raise New Grounds on Appeal' 'jurisdictional Error' 'illogicality' 'probative Weight of Evidence']
['migration' 'administrative and Constitutional Law' 'practice and Procedure'] ['mandatory Visa Cancellation' 'revocation of Visa Cancellation' 'character Test' 'ministerial Direction 79' 'risk of Recidivism' 'leave to Raise New Grounds on Appeal' 'jurisdictional Error' 'illogicality' 'probative Weight of Evidence']

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 Judicial Review Appeal / Appeal to the Full Court From Dismissal of an Application for Judicial Review; Application for Leave to Rely Upon New Grounds on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to file an amended notice of appeal and rely on grounds not raised before the primary judge.' 'Whether the Tribunal took into account an irrelevant or illogical consideration when assessing the likelihood of the appellant engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct.' "Whether the Tribunal erred by failing to give due probative weight to psychologist reports and oral evidence concerning the appellant's risk of reoffending."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to rely on the proposed new grounds was refused because both grounds fell well short of sufficient merit. The Tribunal's assessment of the appellant's risk of recidivism was thorough, reasoned and logical, and it was permissible to consider the possibility of future domestic relationship stressors as part of assessing future risk. The Tribunal also considered the psychologist evidence in detail and was entitled, within its decisional freedom, to accept parts, reject parts, and determine the weight to be given to that evidence. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Leave to file an amended notice of appeal and rely on new grounds was refused; the appeal was dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to file an amended notice of appeal raising grounds of appeal that were not raised before the primary judge, and leave to rely upon those grounds, be refused.' 'The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the first respondent's costs as assessed or agreed."]