DBR17 v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1783

DBR17 v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1783

The Federal Circuit Court's dismissal under r 44.12(1)(a) was interlocutory, so the appeal was incompetent without leave. Treating the matter as an application for an extension of time and leave to appeal, the proposed grounds were not raised below and had no substance. The Tribunal was correct to conclude that the appellant's claims about threats from her family over a proposed marriage did not raise a fear of persecution for a Convention reason and did not attract protection obligations under s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). No arguable error by the primary judge or jurisdictional error by the Tribunal was shown.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Federal Circuit Court Dismissal of Application for Constitutional Writ Relief Concerning Refusal of Protection Visa / Competency of Appeal and Oral Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed as incompetent; oral application for extension of time and leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'complementary Protection' 'jurisdictional Error' 'interlocutory Judgment' 'leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time' 'forced Marriage Claim']
['administrative Law' 'migration Law' 'refugee Law'] ['protection Visa' 'complementary Protection' 'jurisdictional Error' 'interlocutory Judgment' 'leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time' 'forced Marriage Claim']

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 From Federal Circuit Court Dismissal of Application for Constitutional Writ Relief Concerning Refusal of Protection Visa / Competency of Appeal and Oral Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appeal from the Federal Circuit Court was incompetent because the judgment was interlocutory and leave to appeal had not been granted.' 'Whether an extension of time and leave to appeal should be granted.' "Whether the proposed grounds raised an arguable case of error by the primary judge or jurisdictional error by the Tribunal in relation to the appellant's protection visa claims."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Federal Circuit Court's dismissal under r 44.12(1)(a) was interlocutory, so the appeal was incompetent without leave. Treating the matter as an application for an extension of time and leave to appeal, the proposed grounds were not raised below and had no substance. The Tribunal was correct to conclude that the appellant's claims about threats from her family over a proposed marriage did not raise a fear of persecution for a Convention reason and did not attract protection obligations under s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). No arguable error by the primary judge or jurisdictional error by the Tribunal was shown.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed as incompetent; oral application for extension of time and leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed as incompetent.' 'The oral application for an extension of time in which to file any application for leave to appeal be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the amount of $2700."]