CAJ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 119

CAJ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 119

The Tribunal did not misconstrue s 91R(2) of the Migration Act; it considered whether the appellant's treatment amounted to 'serious harm' and properly rejected the claim. The primary judge made no error and the appeal must be dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'persecution' 'serious Harm' 'interpretation of S 91 R Migration Act' 'jurisdictional Error']
['migration' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa' 'persecution' 'serious Harm' 'interpretation of S 91 R Migration Act' '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

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Tribunal misinterpreted s 91R(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) as exhaustively setting out instances of 'serious harm'" "Whether the appellant suffered or feared 'serious harm' amounting to persecution under s 91R(1)(b) of the Migration Act"]

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not misconstrue s 91R(2) of the Migration Act; it considered whether the appellant's treatment amounted to 'serious harm' and properly rejected the claim. The primary judge made no error and the appeal must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ["The appellant's notice of appeal dated 23 February 2017 is dismissed." "The appellant is to pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal, to be taxed if not agreed."]