BVN17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 534

BVN17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 534

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant's grounds were unparticularised and, even considering them as far as possible for a self-represented litigant, the Court identified no jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decision or legal error in the primary judge's decision. The Tribunal considered the relevant statutory provisions, claims, evidence and country information, made factual findings open on the evidence, and was entitled to conclude that the appellant could safely and reasonably relocate within Malaysia. The appellant did not identify any incorrect information, and nothing in the Tribunal's reasons supported an allegation of bias.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal From Orders Dismissing an Application for Judicial Review of a Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of a Protection (class Xa) (subclass 866) Visa / Appeal to the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Protection' 'complementary Protection' 'jurisdictional Error' 'relocation Within Country of Nationality' 'procedural Fairness' 'bias' 'incorrect Information' 'unparticularised Grounds of Appeal']
['migration' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Protection' 'complementary Protection' 'jurisdictional Error' 'relocation Within Country of Nationality' 'procedural Fairness' 'bias' 'incorrect Information' 'unparticularised Grounds of Appeal']

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

Migration Appeal From Orders Dismissing an Application for Judicial Review of a Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of a Protection (class Xa) (subclass 866) Visa / Appeal to the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the primary judge erred in failing to find jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decision" 'Whether the Tribunal used incorrect information' "Whether the Tribunal failed to consider integers of the appellant's claims or relevant evidence" "Whether the Tribunal's decision was affected by bias" 'Whether the appellant could safely and reasonably relocate within Malaysia for the purposes of refugee and complementary protection criteria']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant's grounds were unparticularised and, even considering them as far as possible for a self-represented litigant, the Court identified no jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decision or legal error in the primary judge's decision. The Tribunal considered the relevant statutory provisions, claims, evidence and country information, made factual findings open on the evidence, and was entitled to conclude that the appellant could safely and reasonably relocate within Malaysia. The appellant did not identify any incorrect information, and nothing in the Tribunal's reasons supported an allegation of bias.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' "The appellant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the amount of $4,000.00." 'The name of the first respondent be amended to the "Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs".']