CNT16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1430

CNT16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1430

The appeal was dismissed because none of the grounds or submissions identified error by the primary judge, and no jurisdictional error or other error was discernible in the Tribunal's reasons. The Tribunal had rejected the appellant's refugee and complementary protection claims on the basis that his material factual claims were fabricated, and its adverse credibility findings were open on the material.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal Concerning Refusal of a Protection Visa / Appeal to the Federal Court of Australia From Orders of the Federal Circuit Court Dismissing an Application for Judicial Review of an Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'complementary Protection' 'refugees Convention Grounds' 'jurisdictional Error' 'adverse Credibility Findings' 'judicial Review']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa' 'complementary Protection' 'refugees Convention Grounds' 'jurisdictional Error' 'adverse Credibility Findings' 'judicial Review']

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 Refusal of a Protection Visa / Appeal to the Federal Court of Australia From Orders of the Federal Circuit Court Dismissing an Application for Judicial Review of an Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the primary judge erred in failing to find jurisdictional error by the Tribunal in applying the test for complementary protection under s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).' 'Whether the primary judge erred in failing to find jurisdictional error by the Tribunal in its treatment of factual issues and adverse credibility findings.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because none of the grounds or submissions identified error by the primary judge, and no jurisdictional error or other error was discernible in the Tribunal's reasons. The Tribunal had rejected the appellant's refugee and complementary protection claims on the basis that his material factual claims were fabricated, and its adverse credibility findings were open on the material.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the first respondent's costs as taxed or agreed."]