AMQ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 129

AMQ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 129

None of the applicant's proposed grounds of appeal identify an arguable error on the part of the Federal Circuit Court; the AAT's findings and application of the law were open and reasoned; there is insufficient doubt about the correctness of the FCCA's decision to warrant leave to appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Determination of Application for Leave to Appeal From Federal Circuit Court Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'leave to Appeal' 'refugee Law' 'credibility Assessment' 'jurisdictional Error' 'procedural Fairness']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal / Determination of Application for Leave to Appeal From Federal Circuit Court Judgment

  1. 1 ["Whether the Federal Circuit Court erred in finding no arguable jurisdictional error in the AAT's decision" 'Whether sufficient doubt attends the correctness of the FCCA’s decision to warrant leave to appeal' 'Whether the AAT applied the correct legal tests for persecution and complementary protection' 'Whether procedural fairness was denied by the Tribunal']

Ratio Decidendi

None of the applicant's proposed grounds of appeal identify an arguable error on the part of the Federal Circuit Court; the AAT's findings and application of the law were open and reasoned; there is insufficient doubt about the correctness of the FCCA's decision to warrant leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal dated 25 August 2016 is dismissed.' 'The applicant pay the costs of the first respondent, as agreed or assessed.']