CDI15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 58

CDI15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 58

The appellant's current appeal was legally indistinguishable from BVJ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1205. The first protection visa application was not a nullity merely because of the version of Form 866 used, because the relevant provisions required completion of Form 866 as approved from time to time and did not incorporate a fixed version of the form. Accordingly, s 48A applied to bar the second protection visa application, and the primary judge did not err in dismissing the application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal Concerning Validity of a Second Protection Visa Application / Appeal to the Federal Court of Australia From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa Applications' 'section 48 a Bar on Further Protection Visa Applications' 'approved Forms' 'form 866' 'jurisdictional Error']
['migration' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa Applications' 'section 48 a Bar on Further Protection Visa Applications' 'approved Forms' 'form 866' '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

Migration Appeal Concerning Validity of a Second Protection Visa Application / Appeal to the Federal Court of Australia From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the appellant's first protection visa application was invalid because the wrong version of Form 866 was used." "Whether s 48A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) barred the appellant's second protection visa application." "Whether the primary judge erred in rejecting the appellant's argument that the first visa application was a nullity."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's current appeal was legally indistinguishable from BVJ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1205. The first protection visa application was not a nullity merely because of the version of Form 866 used, because the relevant provisions required completion of Form 866 as approved from time to time and did not incorporate a fixed version of the form. Accordingly, s 48A applied to bar the second protection visa application, and the primary judge did not err in dismissing the application.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the respondent's costs."]