EQJ19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 1476

EQJ19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 1476

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant's proposed grounds did not identify jurisdictional error, the primary judge's rejection of the grounds was plainly or clearly correct, the allegation of bias was unparticularised and not established, and the decision below was not attended with sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration on appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Migration Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From a Federal Circuit Court Decision Dismissing Judicial Review of an Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of a Protection Visa
Outcome
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time' 'jurisdictional Error' 'bias' 'show Cause Hearing']
['migration' 'administrative Law' 'judicial Review'] ['protection Visa' 'leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time' 'jurisdictional Error' 'bias' 'show Cause Hearing']

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 Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From a Federal Circuit Court Decision Dismissing Judicial Review of an Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of a Protection Visa

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the Federal Circuit Court's dismissal of the judicial review application" 'Whether the proposed grounds identified jurisdictional error by the Tribunal or the primary judge' "Whether the Tribunal failed to take into account the whole of the applicant's reasons" 'Whether the Tribunal was biased against the applicant' 'Whether the decision below was attended with sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration on appeal']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant's proposed grounds did not identify jurisdictional error, the primary judge's rejection of the grounds was plainly or clearly correct, the allegation of bias was unparticularised and not established, and the decision below was not attended with sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration on appeal.

Court Disposition

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the first respondent's costs." "The name of the first respondent be changed to 'Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs'."]