AYD16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 841

AYD16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 841

Leave to rely on new grounds 1 and 4 was refused because neither ground had merit, and the appeal was dismissed because the grounds either sought merits review of factual and credibility findings, identified no procedural failure, or were answered by the primary judge's correct findings that the Tribunal considered the claims and country information as made and afforded the appellant sufficient opportunity to address the dispositive credibility issue. No jurisdictional error was established.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal From Dismissal of Judicial Review of Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of Protection Visa / Appeal to the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Leave to rely on grounds 1 and 4 refused; appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'adverse Credibility Findings' 'procedural Fairness' 'country Information']
['migration' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'adverse Credibility Findings' 'procedural Fairness' 'country Information']

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 From Dismissal of Judicial Review of Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of Protection Visa / Appeal to the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to rely on new appeal grounds 1 and 4.' "Whether the Federal Circuit Court erred in finding no jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's adverse credibility findings and treatment of the appellant's protection claims." 'Whether the Tribunal failed to consider an independent claim based on political opinion against the Awami League party and support for the Bangladesh Nationalist Party.' 'Whether the Tribunal failed to consider escalating political violence and country information concerning Bangladesh.' 'Whether the Tribunal failed to follow proper procedure or afford procedural fairness.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to rely on new grounds 1 and 4 was refused because neither ground had merit, and the appeal was dismissed because the grounds either sought merits review of factual and credibility findings, identified no procedural failure, or were answered by the primary judge's correct findings that the Tribunal considered the claims and country information as made and afforded the appellant sufficient opportunity to address the dispositive credibility issue. No jurisdictional error was established.

Court Disposition

Leave to rely on grounds 1 and 4 refused; appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Leave to rely on grounds 1 and 4 of the Notice of Appeal is refused.' 'The appeal be dismissed.' 'The appellant to pay the costs of the first respondent, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement.']