BSL17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 480

BSL17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 480

The Authority's reasons, read fairly and as a whole, demonstrate proper consideration of the appellant's circumstances—including the alleged remote risk of harm and subjective fear—when applying s 36(2B)(a) and complementary protection, such that no jurisdictional error was established and the Federal Circuit Court's decision should stand.

Parties
Appellant: BSL17; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs; Second Respondent: Immigration Assessment Authority
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Federal Circuit Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Protection Visas, Judicial Review, Complementary Protection, Internal Relocation, Model Litigant Obligations
Migration Law Administrative Law Protection Visas Judicial Review Complementary Protection Internal Relocation Model Litigant Obligations

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BSL17

Appellant

Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

First Respondent

Immigration Assessment Authority

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Federal Circuit Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Immigration Assessment Authority failed to consider a claim regarding the reasonableness of internal relocation under s 36 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether jurisdictional error occurred in the Authority's decision due to alleged failure to consider the appellant's subjective fear and the remote risk of harm
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was required to seek leave to raise proposed grounds on appeal not raised below, and the effect of the Minister’s consent

Ratio Decidendi

The Authority's reasons, read fairly and as a whole, demonstrate proper consideration of the appellant's circumstances—including the alleged remote risk of harm and subjective fear—when applying s 36(2B)(a) and complementary protection, such that no jurisdictional error was established and the Federal Circuit Court's decision should stand.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The name of the first respondent be amended from Minister for Home Affairs to Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs.
  • The second draft notice of appeal filed 23 November 2018 (dated 19 October 2018) be deemed to be a notice of appeal filed and served in accordance with the Court's order of 20 February 2019.