BKX15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 967

BKX15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 967

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to particularise any component integer of his protection visa claim that the Tribunal had not considered, and the Court found from the statutory declaration and the Tribunal's reasons that the Tribunal did consider all component integers of the claim. The appellant's complaint was in substance disagreement with the Tribunal's assessment of evidence, which did not establish jurisdictional error.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal From Federal Circuit Court Dismissal of Judicial Review Application Concerning Refusal of a Protection Visa / Appeal to the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'failure to Consider Claim Integer' 'complementary Protection' 'unauthorised Maritime Arrival']
['migration' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'failure to Consider Claim Integer' 'complementary Protection' 'unauthorised Maritime Arrival']

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 Federal Circuit Court Dismissal of Judicial Review Application Concerning Refusal of a Protection Visa / Appeal to the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Tribunal failed to consider s 414 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) because it failed to consider a component integer of the appellant's protection visa claim." 'Whether the asserted failure, if not detected by the Federal Circuit Court, established jurisdictional error warranting allowing the appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to particularise any component integer of his protection visa claim that the Tribunal had not considered, and the Court found from the statutory declaration and the Tribunal's reasons that the Tribunal did consider all component integers of the claim. The appellant's complaint was in substance disagreement with the Tribunal's assessment of evidence, which did not establish jurisdictional error.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

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