CCQ17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1641

CCQ17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1641

Assuming (without deciding) that the Authority failed to consider exercising its discretion under s 473DC to invite the appellant to comment on the 2017 DFAT Report, such a failure was not legally unreasonable given the statutory context which restricts natural justice, specifically excludes notification for new country information about a class of persons (s 473DE(3)(a)), and there was no new issue or materially different use arising from the 2017 DFAT Report compared to the 2015 report.

Parties
Appellant: CCQ17; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Border Protection; Second Respondent: Immigration Assessment Authority
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal / Federal Court of Australia Appellate
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Natural Justice, Legal Unreasonableness, Immigration Assessment Authority, Use of New Information
Administrative Law Migration Law Judicial Review Procedural Fairness Natural Justice Legal Unreasonableness Immigration Assessment Authority Use of New Information

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CCQ17

Appellant

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

First Respondent

Immigration Assessment Authority

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Migration Appeal / Federal Court of Australia Appellate

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Authority failed to consider exercising its discretion under s 473DC of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether it was legally unreasonable for the Authority not to consider inviting the appellant to comment on 'new information', namely the 2017 DFAT Report
  3. 3 Whether there was a denial of natural justice or jurisdictional error

Ratio Decidendi

Assuming (without deciding) that the Authority failed to consider exercising its discretion under s 473DC to invite the appellant to comment on the 2017 DFAT Report, such a failure was not legally unreasonable given the statutory context which restricts natural justice, specifically excludes notification for new country information about a class of persons (s 473DE(3)(a)), and there was no new issue or materially different use arising from the 2017 DFAT Report compared to the 2015 report.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed.
  • The appellant pay the first respondent's costs as agreed or assessed.