CHB16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 1089

CHB16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 1089

The Tribunal's reasons, fairly read, indicate it considered the applicant's mental health vulnerabilities and associated claims at a general level, including the potential exacerbation of his condition in Sri Lanka. It was not required to separately address the appellant's access to treatment in Sri Lanka as an explicit integer, nor was there a squarely raised claim based on risk of self-harm or suicide that would constitute significant harm within s 36(2A). Even if such a claim arose, self-inflicted harm does not fall within the statutory concept of significant harm under the Migration Act. Consequently, no jurisdictional error was established and the appeal could not succeed.

Parties
Appellant: CHB16; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Border Protection; Second Respondent: Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Protection Visa, Judicial Review, Jurisdictional Error, Mental Health and Asylum Claims, Complementary Protection, Serious Harm, Significant Harm
Migration Law Administrative Law Protection Visa Judicial Review Jurisdictional Error Mental Health and Asylum Claims Complementary Protection Serious Harm +1 more

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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHB16

Appellant

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

First Respondent

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal failed to consider an integer of the appellant's claim concerning the risk of serious harm due to his mental health upon return to Sri Lanka
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal failed to consider a claim that clearly arose from the materials, namely the risk of self-harm or suicide amounting to significant harm under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
  3. 3 Whether any omission by the Tribunal constituted jurisdictional error

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal's reasons, fairly read, indicate it considered the applicant's mental health vulnerabilities and associated claims at a general level, including the potential exacerbation of his condition in Sri Lanka. It was not required to separately address the appellant's access to treatment in Sri Lanka as an explicit integer, nor was there a squarely raised claim based on risk of self-harm or suicide that would constitute significant harm within s 36(2A). Even if such a claim arose, self-inflicted harm does not fall within the statutory concept of significant harm under the Migration Act. Consequently, no jurisdictional error was established and the appeal could not succeed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The notice of appeal filed 4 September 2018 is dismissed.
  • The appellant pay the first respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal to be taxed failing agreement.