BUS19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2019] FCA 1913

BUS19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2019] FCA 1913

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law or jurisdictional error made by either the AAT or the primary judge. The applicant's grievances were found to be disagreements with findings of fact and credibility, not genuine jurisdictional issues. There was no reasonable prospect of appeal, so the discretionary refusal of leave was appropriate.

Parties
Applicant: BUS19; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs; Second Respondent: Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Migration – Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From a Decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Refusal of Protection Visa, Application for Judicial Review, Jurisdictional Error, Appeals – Leave Requirements
Migration Law Administrative Law Refusal of Protection Visa Application for Judicial Review Jurisdictional Error Appeals – Leave Requirements

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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BUS19

Applicant

Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

First Respondent

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Migration – Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From a Decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was any arguable jurisdictional error on the part of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in affirming the refusal of a protection visa
  2. 2 Whether the primary judge of the Federal Circuit Court erred in dismissing the application for judicial review under r 44.12 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth)

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law or jurisdictional error made by either the AAT or the primary judge. The applicant's grievances were found to be disagreements with findings of fact and credibility, not genuine jurisdictional issues. There was no reasonable prospect of appeal, so the discretionary refusal of leave was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The applicant's application of 27 June 2019 for leave to appeal be dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of the application, to be assessed in default of agreement in accordance with the court's Costs Practice Note (GPN-COSTS).