DQG16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 2021

DQG16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 2021

The appeal was dismissed because Ground 1 had not been raised before the primary judge and was no more than an attempt to obtain a different decision on the merits, while Ground 2 lacked particularity and disclosed no merit. The Court found no error in the primary judge's reasons and no error, let alone jurisdictional error, in the Tribunal's decision. The appellant's oral complaints about interpreters, lack of legal representation, country information and later family circumstances did not provide a basis for appellate intervention.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal From an Order of the Federal Circuit Court Dismissing an Application for Judicial Review of an Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of a Protection (class Sa) Visa / Appeal to the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs fixed against the appellant in favour of the first respondent.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Criterion' 'complementary Protection' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'section 424 a Procedural Fairness' 'section 438 Certificate' 'adjournment' 'costs']
['migration' 'administrative Law' 'practice and Procedure'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Criterion' 'complementary Protection' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'section 424 a Procedural Fairness' 'section 438 Certificate' 'adjournment' 'costs']

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 an Order of the Federal Circuit Court Dismissing an Application for Judicial Review of an Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of a Protection (class Sa) Visa / Appeal to the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the primary judge erred in dismissing the application for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision." 'Whether the Tribunal acted in a manifestly unreasonable way or ignored persecution and harm in terms of Sec.91R of the Act.' 'Whether the Tribunal made legal or factual errors amounting to jurisdictional error.' 'Whether a further adjournment should be granted to allow the appellant to obtain legal assistance.' 'Whether complaints about interpreters, absence of a lawyer, treatment of country information, and proposed new evidence provided a basis for allowing the appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because Ground 1 had not been raised before the primary judge and was no more than an attempt to obtain a different decision on the merits, while Ground 2 lacked particularity and disclosed no merit. The Court found no error in the primary judge's reasons and no error, let alone jurisdictional error, in the Tribunal's decision. The appellant's oral complaints about interpreters, lack of legal representation, country information and later family circumstances did not provide a basis for appellate intervention.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs fixed against the appellant in favour of the first respondent.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the first respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal fixed in the sum of $5,000."]