BTA15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 422

BTA15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 422

The appellant failed to establish any prima facie case or sufficient likelihood of success on appeal. The first aspect of Ground 1 was an impermissible challenge to factual findings based on country information and relied on mere anecdotal assertion. The second aspect of Ground 1 had not been raised before the Minister's delegate, the RRT, or the Federal Circuit Court and was wholly without merit. Ground 2 disclosed no relevant error because it lacked particulars. As the appeal had no prospect of success, it was unnecessary to consider the balance of convenience, and the interlocutory injunction application had to be dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunction in Migration Appeal / Interlocutory Application Pending Hearing and Determination of Appeal
Outcome
Interlocutory application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunction Pending Appeal' 'removal From Australia' 'protection Visa Refusal' 'prima Facie Case on Appeal' 'balance of Convenience' 'non Refoulement' 'procedural Fairness']
['administrative Law' 'migration Law' 'practice and Procedure'] ['interlocutory Injunction Pending Appeal' 'removal From Australia' 'protection Visa Refusal' 'prima Facie Case on Appeal' 'balance of Convenience' 'non Refoulement' 'procedural Fairness']

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

Application for Interlocutory Injunction in Migration Appeal / Interlocutory Application Pending Hearing and Determination of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellant demonstrated a prima facie case or sufficient likelihood of success on appeal to justify preserving the status quo pending appeal.' "Whether the appellant's proposed grounds disclosed error in the Federal Circuit Court's judgment or impermissibly challenged factual findings based on country information." 'Whether it was necessary to consider the balance of convenience if no sufficient likelihood of success was shown.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to establish any prima facie case or sufficient likelihood of success on appeal. The first aspect of Ground 1 was an impermissible challenge to factual findings based on country information and relied on mere anecdotal assertion. The second aspect of Ground 1 had not been raised before the Minister's delegate, the RRT, or the Federal Circuit Court and was wholly without merit. Ground 2 disclosed no relevant error because it lacked particulars. As the appeal had no prospect of success, it was unnecessary to consider the balance of convenience, and the interlocutory injunction application had to be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The interlocutory application filed by the appellant on 12 April 2017 seeking injunctive relief preventing the first respondent from taking action to remove the appellant from Australia be dismissed.']