ELD18 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCA 299

ELD18 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCA 299

The Authority did not find that the appellant could not have walked for 14 hours, but instead expressed reservations about the plausibility of that claim in light of the mistreatment he claimed to have suffered. It was open to the Authority, acting reasonably, to regard the appellant's account as implausible and not accept it. The proposed new ground also lacked merit because, read in context, the Authority's finding of inconsistency between the written statement and SHEV interview concerning the Taliban incident was open and was not illogical or irrational. Leave to file the amended notice of appeal was therefore refused and the appeal dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal From Federal Circuit Court Judicial Review Decision / Appeal to the Federal Court of Australia From Dismissal of Judicial Review Application; Application for Leave to File Amended Notice of Appeal
Outcome
Application to file an amended notice of appeal refused; appeal dismissed; appellant ordered to pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal.
Legal Topics
['safe Haven Enterprise Visa' 'protection Visa' 'immigration Assessment Authority' 'judicial Review' 'legal Unreasonableness' 'illogicality or Irrationality' 'adverse Credibility Findings' 'leave to Raise New Ground on Appeal']
['migration' 'administrative Law'] ['safe Haven Enterprise Visa' 'protection Visa' 'immigration Assessment Authority' 'judicial Review' 'legal Unreasonableness' 'illogicality or Irrationality' 'adverse Credibility Findings' 'leave to Raise New Ground on Appeal']

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 Federal Circuit Court Judicial Review Decision / Appeal to the Federal Court of Australia From Dismissal of Judicial Review Application; Application for Leave to File Amended Notice of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the primary judge erred by not finding that the Authority's decision was affected by illogicality, irrationality or want of intelligible justification in relation to the appellant's claim that he walked for 14 or 24 hours after escaping the Taliban." 'Whether the Authority made a finding that the appellant could not have walked for 14 hours after his escape.' "Whether leave should be granted to raise a new appeal ground alleging that the Authority incorrectly found an inconsistency in the appellant's accounts concerning a Taliban member touching him." "Whether the Authority's adverse credibility reasoning was open on the material before it."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Authority did not find that the appellant could not have walked for 14 hours, but instead expressed reservations about the plausibility of that claim in light of the mistreatment he claimed to have suffered. It was open to the Authority, acting reasonably, to regard the appellant's account as implausible and not accept it. The proposed new ground also lacked merit because, read in context, the Authority's finding of inconsistency between the written statement and SHEV interview concerning the Taliban incident was open and was not illogical or irrational. Leave to file the amended notice of appeal was therefore refused and the appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application to file an amended notice of appeal refused; appeal dismissed; appellant ordered to pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal.

Orders

  • ['The application to file an amended notice of appeal is refused.' 'The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal."]