AML18 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCA 28

AML18 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCA 28

The primary judge comprehensively reviewed the Authority's decision against the grounds advanced, correctly stated and applied the relevant law, considered the material before him, and did not fail to consider any evidence. The appellant identified no error of law or jurisdictional error and instead sought merits review, so the appeal ground was not established.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal From Dismissal of Judicial Review Application / Appeal to the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['safe Haven Enterprise Visa' 'immigration Assessment Authority' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'new Information Under S 473 Dd' 'impermissible Merits Review']
['migration' 'administrative Law'] ['safe Haven Enterprise Visa' 'immigration Assessment Authority' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'new Information Under S 473 Dd' 'impermissible Merits Review']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Migration Appeal From Dismissal of Judicial Review Application / Appeal to the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the primary judge failed adequately to examine the evidence or exercise the Court's proper jurisdiction." 'Whether the Authority correctly applied s 473DD of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) in deciding whether new information could be considered.' "Whether the appellant identified a reviewable jurisdictional error rather than seeking merits review of the Authority's decision."]

Ratio Decidendi

The primary judge comprehensively reviewed the Authority's decision against the grounds advanced, correctly stated and applied the relevant law, considered the material before him, and did not fail to consider any evidence. The appellant identified no error of law or jurisdictional error and instead sought merits review, so the appeal ground was not established.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

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