BWS16 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 1151

BWS16 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 1151

The primary judge did not err in finding that none of the proposed grounds of review disclosed an arguable case of jurisdictional error, as the Tribunal did deal with all integers of the applicant's claims, made adverse credibility findings, and did not overlook relevant matters. As there was no sufficient doubt attending the primary judge's decision, leave to appeal was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Judgment on Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'judicial Review' 'procedural Fairness' 'jurisdictional Error']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['leave to Appeal' 'judicial Review' 'procedural Fairness' 'jurisdictional Error']

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 Leave to Appeal / Judgment on Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the primary judge erred in refusing reinstatement of application for judicial review' "Whether the Tribunal failed to deal with integers of the applicant's claim" "Whether Tribunal's approach was unreasonable or attended by jurisdictional error"]

Ratio Decidendi

The primary judge did not err in finding that none of the proposed grounds of review disclosed an arguable case of jurisdictional error, as the Tribunal did deal with all integers of the applicant's claims, made adverse credibility findings, and did not overlook relevant matters. As there was no sufficient doubt attending the primary judge's decision, leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.' "The applicant must pay the first respondent's costs of the application, to be assessed if not agreed."]