DDJ16 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 943

DDJ16 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 943

The appeal failed because the primary judge correctly found no jurisdictional error. The Authority had no obligation to interview the appellant, or even to consider doing so in the circumstances; the Daily Mirror country information complained about had in fact been put to the appellant during the delegate's interview; and the updated US State Department report was country information that did not have to be put to the appellant for comment under s 473DE(3)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal From Dismissal of an Application for Judicial Review of an Immigration Assessment Authority Decision Affirming Refusal of a Safe Haven Enterprise (subclass 790) Visa / Appeal to the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'safe Haven Enterprise (subclass 790) Visa' 'immigration Assessment Authority' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'natural Justice Hearing Rule' 'country Information' 'part 7 AA Review']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa' 'safe Haven Enterprise (subclass 790) Visa' 'immigration Assessment Authority' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'natural Justice Hearing Rule' 'country Information' 'part 7 AA Review']

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 Dismissal of an Application for Judicial Review of an Immigration Assessment Authority Decision Affirming Refusal of a Safe Haven Enterprise (subclass 790) Visa / Appeal to the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Immigration Assessment Authority was obliged to conduct an interview of the appellant or consider doing so' 'Whether the Authority relied on information that was not put to the appellant for comment' 'Whether an updated country report considered by the Authority had to be put to the appellant for comment' 'Whether the primary judge erred in finding no jurisdictional error']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the primary judge correctly found no jurisdictional error. The Authority had no obligation to interview the appellant, or even to consider doing so in the circumstances; the Daily Mirror country information complained about had in fact been put to the appellant during the delegate's interview; and the updated US State Department report was country information that did not have to be put to the appellant for comment under s 473DE(3)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

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