DAY16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1750

DAY16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1750

The appellant did not establish that the Authority's failure to seek further country information on societal discrimination against Tamils constituted legal unreasonableness or jurisdictional error; there was no duty under the statute for the Authority to obtain such information, the Authority's approach did not lack an evident or intelligible justification, and no relevant additional country information was identified. Accordingly, both the application to amend the notice of appeal and the appeal itself were dismissed with costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Federal Circuit Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Application to amend notice of appeal refused. Costs ordered against the appellant.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'legal Unreasonableness' 'jurisdictional Error' 'country Information in Migration Decisions']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['judicial Review' 'legal Unreasonableness' 'jurisdictional Error' 'country Information in Migration Decisions']

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 on Appeal From Federal Circuit Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Authority's failure to seek further country information regarding societal discrimination against Tamils in Sri Lanka constituted legal unreasonableness and jurisdictional error" 'Whether leave should be granted to raise a new ground of judicial review not raised in the Federal Circuit Court']

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant did not establish that the Authority's failure to seek further country information on societal discrimination against Tamils constituted legal unreasonableness or jurisdictional error; there was no duty under the statute for the Authority to obtain such information, the Authority's approach did not lack an evident or intelligible justification, and no relevant additional country information was identified. Accordingly, both the application to amend the notice of appeal and the appeal itself were dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. Application to amend notice of appeal refused. Costs ordered against the appellant.

Orders

  • ['The application to amend the notice of appeal in the form of the Proposed Amended notice of appeal from the Federal Circuit Court of Australia dated 7 November 2018 be refused.' 'The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the first respondent's costs of the application and the appeal."]