BBK15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 680

BBK15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 680

The Tribunal did not commit jurisdictional error. It rejected the appellant's claims that he or his family were targeted by, or of adverse interest to, the Taliban and found that he had no religious, political or other profile making him a target for sectarian, ethnic or political violence. Any risk he faced arose from generalised or sectarian violence in Pakistan and was not a personal risk within s 36(2B)(c). The Tribunal's construction of s 36(2B)(c) was correct, it did not fail to consider its findings, and its conclusions were not manifestly illogical or unreasonable.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal Concerning Refusal of a Protection Visa / Appeal to the Federal Court From Orders of the Federal Circuit Court Dismissing Judicial Review of the Tribunal's Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visas' 'complementary Protection' 'section 36(2 B)(c) of the Migration Act 1958 (cth)' 'jurisdictional Error' 'generalised Violence' 'real Risk of Significant Harm']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visas' 'complementary Protection' 'section 36(2 B)(c) of the Migration Act 1958 (cth)' 'jurisdictional Error' 'generalised Violence' 'real Risk of Significant Harm']

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 / Appeal to the Federal Court From Orders of the Federal Circuit Court Dismissing Judicial Review of the Tribunal's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal misunderstood or failed to apply the correct test in s 36(2B)(c) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).' "Whether the Tribunal failed to take into account its findings as to the nature and extent of the risk of violence in the appellant's home area when applying s 36(2B)(c)." "Whether the Tribunal's finding that the appellant faced only a risk faced by the population generally and not personally was manifestly illogical or unreasonable."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not commit jurisdictional error. It rejected the appellant's claims that he or his family were targeted by, or of adverse interest to, the Taliban and found that he had no religious, political or other profile making him a target for sectarian, ethnic or political violence. Any risk he faced arose from generalised or sectarian violence in Pakistan and was not a personal risk within s 36(2B)(c). The Tribunal's construction of s 36(2B)(c) was correct, it did not fail to consider its findings, and its conclusions were not manifestly illogical or unreasonable.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the first respondent's costs, as taxed if not agreed."]