DTW17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 1622

DTW17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 1622

The Tribunal did not breach s 424A because, in substance, the information it referred to about the basis of the original protection visa grant was information the appellant had provided to the Tribunal for the review, bringing it within s 424A(3)(b). The Tribunal's decision not to call the telephone number supplied by the appellant was not legally unreasonable because it had evident and intelligible justifications: it could not reliably determine the identity of the person answering the call, and the call could disclose the appellant's protection claims to Iranian authorities. The primary judge gave sufficient reasons for rejecting the corresponding ground. The appeal was therefore...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Concerning Judicial Review of a Visa Cancellation Decision / Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs payable by the appellant to the first respondent, to be fixed by way of a lump sum.
Legal Topics
['cancellation of Subclass 866 (protection) Visa Under S 109(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (cth)' 'section 424 a Information Disclosure Obligations' 'legal Unreasonableness' 'failure to Make Inquiries' 'adequacy of Reasons']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['cancellation of Subclass 866 (protection) Visa Under S 109(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (cth)' 'section 424 a Information Disclosure Obligations' 'legal Unreasonableness' 'failure to Make Inquiries' 'adequacy of Reasons']

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 the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Concerning Judicial Review of a Visa Cancellation Decision / Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Federal Circuit Court erred in not concluding that the Tribunal failed to comply with s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) by not giving clear particulars of information from the previous positive protection visa decision.' "Whether the Federal Circuit Court erred in not concluding that the Tribunal unreasonably failed to make a telephone call to a corroborative witness who may have given evidence on the provenance of the appellant's passport." "Whether the Federal Circuit Court failed to give adequate reasons for dismissing the ground concerning the Tribunal's failure to call the corroborative witness."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not breach s 424A because, in substance, the information it referred to about the basis of the original protection visa grant was information the appellant had provided to the Tribunal for the review, bringing it within s 424A(3)(b). The Tribunal's decision not to call the telephone number supplied by the appellant was not legally unreasonable because it had evident and intelligible justifications: it could not reliably determine the identity of the person answering the call, and the call could disclose the appellant's protection claims to Iranian authorities. The primary judge gave sufficient reasons for rejecting the corresponding ground. The appeal was therefore...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs payable by the appellant to the first respondent, to be fixed by way of a lump sum.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal, to be fixed by way of a lump sum." "Within 14 days, the parties file any agreed proposed minutes of orders fixing a lump sum in relation to the first respondent's costs." "In the absence of any agreement, within 21 days, the...