CZE17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 1367

CZE17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 1367

The appeal was dismissed because the Tribunal did not err in law or make a jurisdictional error: it properly assessed the evidence regarding protection, found the appellant's claims lacked sufficient credibility, was not required to apply the relocation test as no real risk was found, reasonably rejected the claim of conscientious objection, and adequately considered complementary protection and risks posed by the appellant's circumstances within the statutory framework. Leave to raise a new ground on appeal was refused as it lacked merit and was not in the interests of justice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment of the Federal Court on Appeal From the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (division 2)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'protection Visa' 'refugee Status' 'credibility Assessment' 'conscientious Objection' 'relocation' 'complementary Protection' 'non Refoulement']
['administrative Law' 'immigration Law' 'human Rights Law'] ['judicial Review' 'protection Visa' 'refugee Status' 'credibility Assessment' 'conscientious Objection' 'relocation' 'complementary Protection' 'non Refoulement']

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 of the Federal Court on Appeal From the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (division 2)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal failed to apply the correct test regarding internal relocation under s 36(2B) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)' 'Whether the Tribunal and the FCFCOA unreasonably rejected the claim that the appellant was a conscientious objector' "Whether the Tribunal and the FCFCOA failed to give due consideration to refoulement and complementary protection, especially considering the appellant's status as an orphan"]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the Tribunal did not err in law or make a jurisdictional error: it properly assessed the evidence regarding protection, found the appellant's claims lacked sufficient credibility, was not required to apply the relocation test as no real risk was found, reasonably rejected the claim of conscientious objection, and adequately considered complementary protection and risks posed by the appellant's circumstances within the statutory framework. Leave to raise a new ground on appeal was refused as it lacked merit and was not in the interests of justice.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ["The name of the first respondent be amended to 'Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs'." 'The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal, fixed in the sum of $4,000."]