BIU18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCA 289

BIU18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCA 289

The appeal was dismissed because the notice of appeal did not establish appellable error. The primary judge's reasons showed that the appellant's submissions were considered. The Authority's failure to invite comment on new country information was not legally unreasonable in the circumstances: the appellant knew that risk in his home area of Jaghori would be considered, had opportunities to provide relevant information, had provided country information, and the Authority was not disabled from making a legally available decision. The case therefore did not involve the jurisdictional error identified in CRY16.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal / Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia; Application for Extension of Time Treated as a Notice of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['safe Haven Enterprise Visa' 'immigration Assessment Authority Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'legal Unreasonableness' 'new Information' 'costs']
['administrative Law' 'migration Law'] ['safe Haven Enterprise Visa' 'immigration Assessment Authority Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'legal Unreasonableness' 'new Information' 'costs']

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 / Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia; Application for Extension of Time Treated as a Notice of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the primary judge failed properly to consider the appellant's submissions dated 29 March 2019." 'Whether the Immigration Assessment Authority acted legally unreasonably by not exercising, or considering exercising, the discretion in s 473DC(3) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to invite comment from the appellant on new country information.' 'Whether the error identified in Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v CRY16 [2017] FCAFC 210 arose in the present case.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the notice of appeal did not establish appellable error. The primary judge's reasons showed that the appellant's submissions were considered. The Authority's failure to invite comment on new country information was not legally unreasonable in the circumstances: the appellant knew that risk in his home area of Jaghori would be considered, had opportunities to provide relevant information, had provided country information, and the Authority was not disabled from making a legally available decision. The case therefore did not involve the jurisdictional error identified in CRY16.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the amount of $3,500."]