BDF21 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 547

BDF21 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 547

The appeal was dismissed because, on a fair reading of the Tribunal's reasons, the Tribunal considered and actively engaged with the country information concerning drug users, 06 Centres, and police harassment in Vietnam. The Tribunal accepted the possibility that the appellant might become addicted to drugs again and might face harm, but found that treatment was available, that he would be entitled to treatment on the same basis as other Vietnamese citizens, and that any harm would not involve the systematic and discriminatory conduct necessary to constitute persecution under s 5J(4). No error was shown in the primary judge's conclusion, and no error was demonstrated in the Tribunal's...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal Concerning Refusal of a Protection Visa / Appeal From the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'administrative Appeals Tribunal Review' 'refugee Protection' 'complementary Protection' 'persecution' 'serious Harm' 'drug Addiction Treatment in Vietnam' 'jurisdictional Error']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa' 'administrative Appeals Tribunal Review' 'refugee Protection' 'complementary Protection' 'persecution' 'serious Harm' 'drug Addiction Treatment in Vietnam' 'jurisdictional Error']

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 From the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the primary judge erred in finding that the Tribunal lawfully considered a claim that, if the appellant resumed drug addiction on return to Vietnam, he may face police harassment and forced incarceration in 06 Centres.' 'Whether the Tribunal failed to actively and genuinely engage with evidence concerning compulsory drug treatment centres, police harassment, and harm to drug users in Vietnam.' 'Whether any harm arising from drug addiction treatment in Vietnam involved systematic and discriminatory conduct for the purposes of s 5J(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in its treatment of complementary protection under s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because, on a fair reading of the Tribunal's reasons, the Tribunal considered and actively engaged with the country information concerning drug users, 06 Centres, and police harassment in Vietnam. The Tribunal accepted the possibility that the appellant might become addicted to drugs again and might face harm, but found that treatment was available, that he would be entitled to treatment on the same basis as other Vietnamese citizens, and that any harm would not involve the systematic and discriminatory conduct necessary to constitute persecution under s 5J(4). No error was shown in the primary judge's conclusion, and no error was demonstrated in the Tribunal's...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'The appellant is to pay the costs of the first respondent to be agreed or assessed.']