DBE19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 779

DBE19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 779

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant did not show error in the primary judge's conclusion that the Authority made no jurisdictional error. The Authority considered and accepted the appellant's subjective fear of harm but found, on country information and the appellant's profile and past experiences, that the fear was not well-founded. It was permissible for the Authority to consider whether the appellant had previously been personally targeted as part of the forward-looking assessment. It was also permissible for the Authority, when considering complementary protection, to rely on factual findings made under the refugee criterion because the appellant relied on the same factual...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal From Federal Circuit Court Decision Refusing Judicial Review of Immigration Assessment Authority Decision / Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Criterion' 'complementary Protection' 'jurisdictional Error' 'subjective Fear of Harm' 'real Chance of Persecution' 'significant Harm']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Criterion' 'complementary Protection' 'jurisdictional Error' 'subjective Fear of Harm' 'real Chance of Persecution' 'significant Harm']

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 From Federal Circuit Court Decision Refusing Judicial Review of Immigration Assessment Authority Decision / Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Immigration Assessment Authority failed to consider whether the appellant had a subjective fear of harm if returned to Iraq.' 'Whether the Authority erred by considering that the appellant had not been personally targeted in Iraq when assessing whether his fear was well-founded.' "Whether the Authority misconstrued or misapplied s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) or failed to give adequate consideration to the appellant's complementary protection claims." 'Whether the primary judge erred in dismissing the application for judicial review.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant did not show error in the primary judge's conclusion that the Authority made no jurisdictional error. The Authority considered and accepted the appellant's subjective fear of harm but found, on country information and the appellant's profile and past experiences, that the fear was not well-founded. It was permissible for the Authority to consider whether the appellant had previously been personally targeted as part of the forward-looking assessment. It was also permissible for the Authority, when considering complementary protection, to rely on factual findings made under the refugee criterion because the appellant relied on the same factual...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The name of the first respondent is changed to Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs.' 'The appeal is dismissed.' "The appellant is to pay the first respondent's costs, as agreed or taxed."]