CLZ19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 105

CLZ19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 105

Both grounds of appeal failed because the appellant did not identify any misapplication of procedure or law by the primary judge and did not establish any denial of procedural fairness by the primary judge or the Tribunal. The primary judge properly addressed the procedural fairness complaint and no error was identified or established.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal From Dismissal of Judicial Review of Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of a Protection Visa / Appeal to the Federal Court of Australia From Orders of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Criterion' 'complementary Protection' 'judicial Review' 'procedural Fairness' 'natural Justice']
['migration' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Criterion' 'complementary Protection' 'judicial Review' 'procedural Fairness' 'natural Justice']

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 Dismissal of Judicial Review of Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of a Protection Visa / Appeal to the Federal Court of Australia From Orders of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the primary judge failed to follow the appropriate procedure or applicable law in dismissing the judicial review application.' 'Whether natural justice or procedural fairness was denied by the Federal Circuit Court or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.' 'Whether any error by the primary judge was identified or established on appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

Both grounds of appeal failed because the appellant did not identify any misapplication of procedure or law by the primary judge and did not establish any denial of procedural fairness by the primary judge or the Tribunal. The primary judge properly addressed the procedural fairness complaint and no error was identified or established.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The name of the first respondent be changed to "Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs".' 'The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the first respondent's costs as assessed or agreed."]