BBQ15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 182

BBQ15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 182

The applicant failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error, denial of procedural fairness, or bias on the part of the Tribunal or the primary judge. The grounds raised largely concerned the merits of the original decision, which are not reviewable at this stage. No substantial injustice would result if leave to appeal were refused. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal (judicial Review Migration) / Determination of Application for Leave to Appeal From Federal Circuit Court Decision
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed; costs ordered against applicant.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'jurisdictional Error' 'procedural Fairness' 'bias (actual and Apprehended)' 'merits Review' 'protection Visa']
['administrative Law' 'immigration Law'] ['leave to Appeal' 'jurisdictional Error' 'procedural Fairness' 'bias (actual and Apprehended)' 'merits Review' 'protection Visa']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal (judicial Review Migration) / Determination of Application for Leave to Appeal From Federal Circuit Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was a denial of procedural fairness by the Tribunal or the primary judge' 'Whether bias or apprehended bias affected the Tribunal or the primary judge' 'Whether the application raises an arguable case of jurisdictional error' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted from an interlocutory order']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error, denial of procedural fairness, or bias on the part of the Tribunal or the primary judge. The grounds raised largely concerned the merits of the original decision, which are not reviewable at this stage. No substantial injustice would result if leave to appeal were refused. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed; costs ordered against applicant.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's application for leave to appeal filed 18 November 2015 be dismissed." "The applicant pay the first respondent's costs."]