S1152 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2006] FCAFC 98

S1152 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2006] FCAFC 98

Leave to amend was refused because no acceptable explanation was given for failing to raise the proposed grounds below and the proposed grounds had no reasonable prospect of success. The Tribunal's impugned findings were based on the appellant's own evidence and country information before it, involved no unsupported inference or flawed logic amounting to jurisdictional error, and provided no basis for a denial of procedural fairness or bad faith. With no remaining viable ground, the appeal was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal From the Chief Federal Magistrate of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia Concerning Review of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision / Application for Leave to Amend Notice of Appeal; Appeal
Outcome
Leave to amend refused; appeal dismissed with costs payable by the appellant to the first respondent.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'procedural Fairness' 'leave to Amend' 'judicial Review' 'country Information' 'probative Material and Logical Grounds']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'refugee Law'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'procedural Fairness' 'leave to Amend' 'judicial Review' 'country Information' 'probative Material and Logical Grounds']

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 the Chief Federal Magistrate of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia Concerning Review of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision / Application for Leave to Amend Notice of Appeal; Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to amend to raise new legal arguments not raised below.' 'Whether the Tribunal failed to afford procedural fairness by not giving the appellant an opportunity to comment on evidence or a conclusion that the LTTE would perceive him as the enemy for persistently refusing to help the LTTE.' "Whether the Tribunal constructively failed to consider the appellant's prospective risk of persecution by drawing inferences unsupported by probative material and logical grounds." 'Whether there was any basis for alleging that the Tribunal failed to exercise its decision making power in good faith.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend was refused because no acceptable explanation was given for failing to raise the proposed grounds below and the proposed grounds had no reasonable prospect of success. The Tribunal's impugned findings were based on the appellant's own evidence and country information before it, involved no unsupported inference or flawed logic amounting to jurisdictional error, and provided no basis for a denial of procedural fairness or bad faith. With no remaining viable ground, the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Leave to amend refused; appeal dismissed with costs payable by the appellant to the first respondent.

Orders

  • ['the appeal be dismissed' "the appellant pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal"]