CAF17 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 2203

CAF17 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 2203

The Authority and the primary judge failed to take into account the appellant’s specific personal and traumatic circumstances in assessing whether it was reasonable to expect him to relocate to Kabul, as required under s 36(2)(aa) and s 36(2B) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This was jurisdictional error because the issue was raised on the material and required consideration.

Parties
Appellant: CAF17; First Respondent: Minister for Home Affairs; Second Respondent: Immigration Assessment Authority
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Orders of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Orders of the Federal Circuit Court set aside. Matter remitted to the Immigration Assessment Authority for reconsideration according to law. Costs ordered against the first respondent.
Legal Topics
Protection Visas, Internal Relocation, Reasonableness of Relocation, Jurisdictional Error, Personal Circumstances in Refugee Law
Migration Law Administrative Law Human Rights Protection Visas Internal Relocation Reasonableness of Relocation Jurisdictional Error Personal Circumstances in Refugee Law

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CAF17

Appellant

Minister for Home Affairs

First Respondent

Immigration Assessment Authority

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Orders of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the Authority fail to consider the appellant’s personal and traumatic circumstances in assessing reasonableness of relocation to Kabul for the purposes of s 36(2)(aa) and s 36(2B) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)?
  2. 2 Was the relevant objection to relocation sufficiently raised on the material before the Authority such that it had a duty to consider it?

Ratio Decidendi

The Authority and the primary judge failed to take into account the appellant’s specific personal and traumatic circumstances in assessing whether it was reasonable to expect him to relocate to Kabul, as required under s 36(2)(aa) and s 36(2B) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This was jurisdictional error because the issue was raised on the material and required consideration.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Orders of the Federal Circuit Court set aside. Matter remitted to the Immigration Assessment Authority for reconsideration according to law. Costs ordered against the first respondent.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • Orders 1 and 2 of the Federal Circuit Court are set aside and in their place, constitutional writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition are issued quashing the IAA decision of 7 April 2017, remitting the matter to the IAA to be decided according to law, and prohibiting the Minister and delegates from acting upon...