AWL17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 570

AWL17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 570

The Authority's findings regarding appellant's livelihood and potential serious harm were reasonable and supported by evidence; surrendering part of fishing catch as behaviour modification did not fall under behaviour protected by s 5J(3) and did not constitute serious harm for refugee protection; Authority properly applied provisions relating to new information and exceptional circumstances; no jurisdictional error occurred.

Parties
Appellant: AWL17; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Border Protection; Second Respondent: Immigration Assessment Authority
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Protection Visa, Jurisdictional Error, Merits Review, Exceptional Circumstances, Serious Harm, Behaviour Modification, Refugee Status
Administrative Law Migration Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Judicial Review Protection Visa Jurisdictional Error Merits Review +4 more

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AWL17

Appellant

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

First Respondent

Immigration Assessment Authority

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the primary judge erred in failing to find jurisdictional error by the Immigration Assessment Authority
  2. 2 Whether the Authority erred by not finding serious harm if appellant was subject to discriminatory conduct and loss of livelihood
  3. 3 Whether the Authority and primary judge erred in considering new information in exceptional circumstances under s 473DD of the Migration Act

Ratio Decidendi

The Authority's findings regarding appellant's livelihood and potential serious harm were reasonable and supported by evidence; surrendering part of fishing catch as behaviour modification did not fall under behaviour protected by s 5J(3) and did not constitute serious harm for refugee protection; Authority properly applied provisions relating to new information and exceptional circumstances; no jurisdictional error occurred.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Leave to further amend ground 1 of the amended notice of appeal refused.
  • Appeal dismissed with costs.