ARY16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1768

ARY16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1768

Leave to amend the Notice of Appeal was refused because the proposed grounds were new, no adequate explanation was provided for not advancing them earlier, and each proposed ground lacked merit. The Tribunal had considered the appellant's claims and documents, gave rational reasons for assigning them little weight due to serious credibility concerns, addressed the asserted risks connected with BNP and AL, and was not required to consider a claim based on departure using a false passport because no such claim was expressly, clearly, or implicitly raised by the material before it.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal Concerning Refusal of a Protection Visa and Alleged Jurisdictional Error / Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia; Application for Leave to Amend the Notice of Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to amend the Notice of Appeal refused; appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa Refusal' 'jurisdictional Error' 'new Grounds on Appeal' 'leave to Amend Notice of Appeal' 'failure to Consider Claims' 'credibility Findings' 'complementary Protection']
['migration' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa Refusal' 'jurisdictional Error' 'new Grounds on Appeal' 'leave to Amend Notice of Appeal' 'failure to Consider Claims' 'credibility Findings' 'complementary Protection']

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 Visa and Alleged Jurisdictional Error / Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia; Application for Leave to Amend the Notice of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to rely on proposed new grounds of appeal not advanced before the Federal Circuit Court.' "Whether the Tribunal failed to properly consider the appellant's claims and documents." "Whether the Tribunal failed to assess the appellant's claims individually and cumulatively, including alleged fear of harm from Awami League members or perceived conduct contrary to BNP interests." 'Whether the Tribunal failed to consider an unarticulated claim that the appellant might be persecuted or suffer significant harm for departing Bangladesh using a false passport.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend the Notice of Appeal was refused because the proposed grounds were new, no adequate explanation was provided for not advancing them earlier, and each proposed ground lacked merit. The Tribunal had considered the appellant's claims and documents, gave rational reasons for assigning them little weight due to serious credibility concerns, addressed the asserted risks connected with BNP and AL, and was not required to consider a claim based on departure using a false passport because no such claim was expressly, clearly, or implicitly raised by the material before it.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to amend the Notice of Appeal refused; appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to amend the Notice of Appeal is refused.' 'The appeal is dismissed.' "The appellant is to pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal."]