DPJ16 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2019] FCA 1429

DPJ16 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2019] FCA 1429

Once the Authority found that the appellant had not been of interest to Sri Lankan authorities from late 2008 and rejected the existence of an outstanding arrest warrant, it was open to rely on DFAT information about failed asylum seekers and returnee checks and to conclude that the appellant did not face a relevant risk of harm. The Authority was not required to consider a separate risk that was not made out, and in any event addressed mistreatment during returnee checks by relying on DFAT information that returnees are not subject to mistreatment while undergoing those checks. The primary judge therefore made no error in rejecting the judicial review grounds.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal From Federal Circuit Court Judicial Review Decision / Appeal to the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['safe Haven Enterprise Visa' 'protection Visa Criteria' 'immigration Assessment Authority' 'jurisdictional Error' 'sri Lankan Tamil Returnee' 'risk of Torture or Mistreatment on Return']
['migration' 'administrative Law' 'judicial Review'] ['safe Haven Enterprise Visa' 'protection Visa Criteria' 'immigration Assessment Authority' 'jurisdictional Error' 'sri Lankan Tamil Returnee' 'risk of Torture or Mistreatment on Return']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Migration Appeal From Federal Circuit Court Judicial Review Decision / Appeal to the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Federal Circuit Court erred in not finding jurisdictional error by the Immigration Assessment Authority for failing to consider the effect of returnee checks involving police, neighbours, family, and criminal or court records on the appellant's risk of harm in Sri Lanka." 'Whether the Authority failed to consider whether the appellant might suffer torture, assault or other serious harm during investigation or questioning on return to Sri Lanka even if ultimately found not to be of interest to Sri Lankan authorities.']

Ratio Decidendi

Once the Authority found that the appellant had not been of interest to Sri Lankan authorities from late 2008 and rejected the existence of an outstanding arrest warrant, it was open to rely on DFAT information about failed asylum seekers and returnee checks and to conclude that the appellant did not face a relevant risk of harm. The Authority was not required to consider a separate risk that was not made out, and in any event addressed mistreatment during returnee checks by relying on DFAT information that returnees are not subject to mistreatment while undergoing those checks. The primary judge therefore made no error in rejecting the judicial review grounds.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["The name of the first respondent be amended to 'Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs'." 'The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the first respondent's costs, to be taxed in default of agreement."]