CJB16 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 44

CJB16 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 44

The application for leave to appeal on a ground not raised before the primary judge should be refused because the alleged mistranslation was not material, did not amount to jurisdictional error, and there was no justification for allowing the new ground to be raised. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: CJB16; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs; Second Respondent: Immigration Assessment Authority
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Federal Circuit Court Judgment Dismissing Application for Judicial Review
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Jurisdictional Error, Translation Errors in Migration Interviews, Appeal on New Grounds
Migration Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Jurisdictional Error Translation Errors in Migration Interviews Appeal on New Grounds

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CJB16

Appellant

Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

First Respondent

Immigration Assessment Authority

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Federal Circuit Court Judgment Dismissing Application for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a mistranslation during the protection visa interview resulted in jurisdictional error by the Immigration Assessment Authority
  2. 2 Whether leave should be granted to appeal on a ground not raised before the primary judge

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal on a ground not raised before the primary judge should be refused because the alleged mistranslation was not material, did not amount to jurisdictional error, and there was no justification for allowing the new ground to be raised. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The application for leave to rely on the draft further amended notice of appeal be refused.
  • The appeal be dismissed.