DQQ17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 784

DQQ17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 784

Although the appellant's notice of appeal did not properly particularise jurisdictional error, the Court permitted the self-represented appellant to explain his concerns orally. Those concerns raised factual matters, reliance on articles not before the Authority, and assertions about safety, but did not demonstrate appellable error by the Federal Circuit Court or jurisdictional error by the Immigration Assessment Authority. The Federal Circuit Court correctly rejected the reliance on the articles and the bias claim, and the reviewer had addressed whether the appellant faced a real risk of harm.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal Concerning Refusal of a Protection Visa / Appeal From Dismissal of an Application for Judicial Review by the Federal Circuit Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'jurisdictional Error' 'immigration Assessment Authority' 'failure to Particularise Appeal Grounds' 'judicial Review' 'complementary Protection' 'bias']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa' 'jurisdictional Error' 'immigration Assessment Authority' 'failure to Particularise Appeal Grounds' 'judicial Review' 'complementary Protection' 'bias']

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 Concerning Refusal of a Protection Visa / Appeal From Dismissal of an Application for Judicial Review by the Federal Circuit Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sole appeal ground should be dismissed for lack of particulars under r 36.01(2) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).' 'Whether matters raised orally by the self-represented appellant disclosed appellable error by the Federal Circuit Court or jurisdictional error by the Immigration Assessment Authority.' 'Whether the Federal Circuit Court erred in refusing to rely on two articles not before the Immigration Assessment Authority.' 'Whether adverse credibility findings supported an allegation of bias.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the appellant's notice of appeal did not properly particularise jurisdictional error, the Court permitted the self-represented appellant to explain his concerns orally. Those concerns raised factual matters, reliance on articles not before the Authority, and assertions about safety, but did not demonstrate appellable error by the Federal Circuit Court or jurisdictional error by the Immigration Assessment Authority. The Federal Circuit Court correctly rejected the reliance on the articles and the bias claim, and the reviewer had addressed whether the appellant faced a real risk of harm.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant do pay the first respondent's costs to be assessed if not agreed."]