ANL15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 1365

ANL15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 1365

The appellant demonstrated no error in the Federal Circuit Court decision. The primary judge had comprehensively considered the materials before him and correctly concluded that the Tribunal had taken the PAM3 Guidelines into account by genuinely engaging with whether short detention and prison conditions on return to Sri Lanka could amount to significant harm. There was no basis to find that the primary judge failed to examine relevant evidence or denied natural justice, and the proposed new grounds concerning Tribunal error lacked apparent merit and had not been raised below despite the appellant being represented by counsel.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Dismissing Application for Judicial Review of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of a Protection Visa / Appeal in the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'complementary Protection' 'mandatory Considerations' 'ministerial Direction No 56' 'pam3 Guidelines' 'natural Justice' 'leave to Raise New Grounds on Appeal' 'jurisdictional Error']
['migration' 'administrative Law' 'judicial Review'] ['protection Visa' 'complementary Protection' 'mandatory Considerations' 'ministerial Direction No 56' 'pam3 Guidelines' 'natural Justice' 'leave to Raise New Grounds on Appeal' 'jurisdictional Error']

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

Appeal From Decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Dismissing Application for Judicial Review of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of a Protection Visa / Appeal in the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Refugee Review Tribunal failed to take into account the PAM3 Guidelines as a mandatory consideration when assessing complementary protection and prison conditions in Sri Lanka.' 'Whether the primary judge failed to examine evidence relevant to jurisdictional error.' 'Whether the primary judge failed to afford natural justice to the appellant.' 'Whether the appellant should have leave to raise new allegations on appeal that the Tribunal failed to examine evidence and failed to follow natural justice.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant demonstrated no error in the Federal Circuit Court decision. The primary judge had comprehensively considered the materials before him and correctly concluded that the Tribunal had taken the PAM3 Guidelines into account by genuinely engaging with whether short detention and prison conditions on return to Sri Lanka could amount to significant harm. There was no basis to find that the primary judge failed to examine relevant evidence or denied natural justice, and the proposed new grounds concerning Tribunal error lacked apparent merit and had not been raised below despite the appellant being represented by counsel.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["The appellant has leave to amend the ground of appeal as follows: 'The primary judge failed to examine my evidence in my appeal and did not follow the rules of natural justice in deciding my case'." 'The appeal is dismissed.' 'The appellant must pay the costs of the first respondent, to be assessed if not agreed.']