CSO15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 14

CSO15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 14

The Tribunal did not err by concentrating its risk analysis on the Orakzai Agency (FATA) as the place of return, as this was consistent with the submissions and evidence presented; it was not legally required to consider risk in every other area, such as KPK, in the absence of specific claims or evidence mandating that approach. The Tribunal also discharged its obligations regarding the psychologist's report by considering it during credibility analysis; no further consideration was required without specific submissions as to its relevance to each instance of inconsistency.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Full Federal Court Judgment on Appeal From Federal Circuit Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'protection Visas' 'internal Relocation' 'credibility Assessment' 'consideration of Expert Evidence']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'human Rights'] ['judicial Review' 'protection Visas' 'internal Relocation' 'credibility Assessment' 'consideration of Expert Evidence']

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 / Full Federal Court Judgment on Appeal From Federal Circuit Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal erred in failing to consider the risks to the applicant on return to each relevant place (internal relocation issue)' 'Whether the Tribunal failed to properly consider an expert psychologist’s report in its credibility assessment']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not err by concentrating its risk analysis on the Orakzai Agency (FATA) as the place of return, as this was consistent with the submissions and evidence presented; it was not legally required to consider risk in every other area, such as KPK, in the absence of specific claims or evidence mandating that approach. The Tribunal also discharged its obligations regarding the psychologist's report by considering it during credibility analysis; no further consideration was required without specific submissions as to its relevance to each instance of inconsistency.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the first respondent's costs, to be fixed by way of a lump sum." "Parties to file any agreed proposed minute of orders fixing a lump sum in relation to the first respondent's costs by 4 pm on 21 February 2018." 'If no agreement, first respondent to file affidavit...