BLO16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 418

BLO16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 418

It was open to the Tribunal to conclude from the appellant's statement and the politician's letter that the appellant claimed a level of political involvement or interest beyond merely putting up posters, and to treat inconsistency between that written material and his oral evidence as adverse to credibility. Viewed as a whole, the Tribunal's adverse credibility finding had an evident and intelligible basis and was not legally unreasonable. New ground 5 lacked sufficient merit and leave to raise it was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal From Federal Circuit Court Dismissal of Judicial Review of Administrative Appeals Tribunal Protection Visa Decision / Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; leave to raise new ground 5 refused.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'adverse Credibility Finding' 'legal Unreasonableness' 'leave to Raise New Ground on Appeal' 'imputed Political Opinion' 'complementary Protection']
['migration' 'administrative Law' 'judicial Review'] ['protection Visa' 'adverse Credibility Finding' 'legal Unreasonableness' 'leave to Raise New Ground on Appeal' 'imputed Political Opinion' 'complementary Protection']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Migration Appeal From Federal Circuit Court Dismissal of Judicial Review of Administrative Appeals Tribunal Protection Visa Decision / Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal erred by asking itself the wrong question or taking an irrelevant consideration into account by treating the appellant as claiming political involvement or interest beyond putting up posters.' "Whether the Tribunal's adverse credibility finding was legally unreasonable." 'Whether leave should be granted to raise new ground 5 on appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

It was open to the Tribunal to conclude from the appellant's statement and the politician's letter that the appellant claimed a level of political involvement or interest beyond merely putting up posters, and to treat inconsistency between that written material and his oral evidence as adverse to credibility. Viewed as a whole, the Tribunal's adverse credibility finding had an evident and intelligible basis and was not legally unreasonable. New ground 5 lacked sufficient merit and leave to raise it was refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; leave to raise new ground 5 refused.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the first respondent's costs as agreed or assessed."]