ALD15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 94

ALD15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 94

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant did not identify any appellable error in the Federal Circuit Court's decision or any jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decision. His assertions of jurisdictional error were general and unparticularised, his complaints concerned factual findings and merits issues, there was no support for bias, and the Tribunal had considered the appellant's claims, evidence and country information and made credibility findings reasonably open to it.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal Concerning Refusal of a Protection (class Xa) Visa / Appeal to the Federal Court of Australia From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Dismissing an Application for Judicial Review
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'jurisdictional Error' 'appellable Error' 'credibility Findings' 'complementary Protection' 'bias' 'country Information']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'judicial Review'] ['protection Visa' 'jurisdictional Error' 'appellable Error' 'credibility Findings' 'complementary Protection' 'bias' 'country Information']

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 Concerning Refusal of a Protection (class Xa) Visa / Appeal to the Federal Court of Australia From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Dismissing an Application for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Federal Circuit Court decision dismissing judicial review of the Tribunal decision was affected by appellable error.' 'Whether the Tribunal decision affirming refusal of a protection visa was affected by jurisdictional error.' 'Whether an unparticularised assertion of jurisdictional error could succeed.' "Whether the appellant established bias, a wrong issue, or a wrong question in the Tribunal's decision-making." 'Whether the Tribunal was required to give different weight to country information or consider the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1978 (Sri Lanka) in the manner advanced by the appellant.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant did not identify any appellable error in the Federal Circuit Court's decision or any jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decision. His assertions of jurisdictional error were general and unparticularised, his complaints concerned factual findings and merits issues, there was no support for bias, and the Tribunal had considered the appellant's claims, evidence and country information and made credibility findings reasonably open to it.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' 'The appellant pay the costs of the first respondent, to be assessed if not agreed.']