BQR18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 703
The Tribunal properly found that the appellant was not owed protection obligations, as he had not claimed harm for a Convention reason and there was state protection available in Malaysia, reducing the risk of significant harm to less than a real one. There was no jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's approach to the evidence and application of complementary protection criteria.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 21 May 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- ['migration' 'protection Visa' 'judicial Review' 'complementary Protection']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the Tribunal failed to consider country information provided by the appellant' "Whether the Tribunal's decision was not open on the evidence" 'Whether the Tribunal failed to accord procedural fairness' 'Whether the Tribunal misconstrued complementary protection criteria under s 36(2)(aa) and s 36(2B)(b) of the Migration Act']
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal properly found that the appellant was not owed protection obligations, as he had not claimed harm for a Convention reason and there was state protection available in Malaysia, reducing the risk of significant harm to less than a real one. There was no jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's approach to the evidence and application of complementary protection criteria.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs
Orders
- ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal."]
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment