CSN15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 985

CSN15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 985

The Tribunal correctly applied the statutory tests required by the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), gave proper consideration to the appellant's claims including cumulative aspects, and did not fall into jurisdictional error; it was open to the Tribunal to conclude that the appellant was not at real risk of harm under either s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa), and the grounds of appeal were not made out.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['jurisdictional Error' 'procedural Fairness' 'refugee Protection' 'complementary Protection' 'cumulative Assessment of Claims' 'ground for Appeal' 'protection Visa' 'significant Harm' 'well Founded Fear of Persecution']
['administrative Law' 'constitutional Law' 'human Rights Law' 'migration Law'] ['jurisdictional Error' 'procedural Fairness' 'refugee Protection' 'complementary Protection' 'cumulative Assessment of Claims' 'ground for Appeal' 'protection Visa' 'significant Harm' 'well Founded Fear of Persecution']

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

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal applied the correct tests under s 36(2)(a) and s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)' 'Whether the Tribunal failed to consider claims cumulatively' 'Whether the Tribunal failed to address one or more integers of claims' 'Whether leave should be granted to rely on further affidavit evidence']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal correctly applied the statutory tests required by the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), gave proper consideration to the appellant's claims including cumulative aspects, and did not fall into jurisdictional error; it was open to the Tribunal to conclude that the appellant was not at real risk of harm under either s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa), and the grounds of appeal were not made out.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The appellant is granted leave to rely upon all five grounds of appeal recited in the Notice of Appeal filed on 24 April 2017.' 'The appeal is dismissed.' "The appellant pay the First Respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal."]