CKJ17 v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1284

CKJ17 v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1284

The appeal was dismissed because Ground 1 had no merit: the Tribunal was not shown to be actually or apparently biased and any obligation to put adverse information was observed. Leave to raise Ground 2 was refused because it raised an issue not raised below and had no prospect of success, as the Tribunal had considered the claimed harm by the ex-husband and rejected it on logical grounds, also finding it did not satisfy s 5J of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Ground 3 had no merit because the Tribunal's credibility and harm findings were logically and rationally expressed and reasonably open.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court Concerning Dismissal of Judicial Review of a Protection Visa Refusal Decision / Appeal to the Federal Court
Outcome
Leave to raise Ground 2 refused; appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'procedural Fairness' 'apprehended or Actual Bias' 'relevant Considerations' 'jurisdictional Error' 'unreasonableness' 'credibility Findings']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa' 'procedural Fairness' 'apprehended or Actual Bias' 'relevant Considerations' 'jurisdictional Error' 'unreasonableness' 'credibility Findings']

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 From the Federal Circuit Court Concerning Dismissal of Judicial Review of a Protection Visa Refusal Decision / Appeal to the Federal Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Federal Circuit Court failed to consider that the Tribunal breached procedural fairness.' 'Whether the appellant should have leave to raise a new ground alleging the Tribunal ignored relevant considerations concerning harm by her ex-husband if returned to Hong Kong.' "Whether the Tribunal made unreasonable findings about the appellant's claimed fear of harm."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because Ground 1 had no merit: the Tribunal was not shown to be actually or apparently biased and any obligation to put adverse information was observed. Leave to raise Ground 2 was refused because it raised an issue not raised below and had no prospect of success, as the Tribunal had considered the claimed harm by the ex-husband and rejected it on logical grounds, also finding it did not satisfy s 5J of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Ground 3 had no merit because the Tribunal's credibility and harm findings were logically and rationally expressed and reasonably open.

Court Disposition

Leave to raise Ground 2 refused; appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Leave to raise Ground 2 in the notice of appeal is refused.' 'The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $4,400."]