BFW16 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 191

BFW16 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 191

The appellant's failure to mention, without prompting, his alleged dispute or fear of harm from his brother-in-law, and his negative answer when asked whether he faced trouble from anyone else in Bangladesh, were not information within s 424A. They did not in their terms reject, deny or undermine his protection claims and were not of dispositive relevance; they were matters used in the Tribunal's evaluative credibility reasoning. The Tribunal therefore did not fail to comply with s 424A, and the appeal failed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal From Refusal of Application for Constitutional Writ / Review Under S 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (cth) Concerning Refusal of Protection Visa / Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia to the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'jurisdictional Error' 'migration Act 1958 (cth) S 424 A' 'administrative Appeals Tribunal' 'information Adverse to Applicant' 'credibility Findings']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa' 'jurisdictional Error' 'migration Act 1958 (cth) S 424 A' 'administrative Appeals Tribunal' 'information Adverse to Applicant' 'credibility Findings']

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 Refusal of Application for Constitutional Writ / Review Under S 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (cth) Concerning Refusal of Protection Visa / Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia to the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal failed to comply with s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) by not giving particulars of its concern that the appellant did not raise fear of harm from his brother-in-law without prompting.' 'Whether the appellant\'s negative answer or failure to mention difficulties with his brother-in-law without prompting was "information" for the purposes of s 424A.' "Whether the Tribunal's view about the appellant's omission was an evaluative credibility assessment rather than information of dispositive relevance."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's failure to mention, without prompting, his alleged dispute or fear of harm from his brother-in-law, and his negative answer when asked whether he faced trouble from anyone else in Bangladesh, were not information within s 424A. They did not in their terms reject, deny or undermine his protection claims and were not of dispositive relevance; they were matters used in the Tribunal's evaluative credibility reasoning. The Tribunal therefore did not fail to comply with s 424A, and the appeal failed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' "The appellant is to pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal."]