BBF15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1177

BBF15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1177

The Tribunal was correct in finding no jurisdiction to consider the third appellant's case as there was no primary decision in respect of her at the relevant time; the Tribunal’s failure to specifically refer to the DFAT country information was immaterial since the appellant’s claim failed for lack of credibility and not credibility of the general conditions in Bangladesh.

Parties
First Appellant: BBF15; Second Appellant: BBG15; Third Appellant: BBH15; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Border Protection; Second Respondent: Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment in Federal Court Following Appeal From Federal Circuit Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Tribunal Jurisdiction, Country Information, Protection Visas
Migration Judicial Review Tribunal Jurisdiction Country Information Protection Visas

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BBF15

First Appellant

BBG15

Second Appellant

BBH15

Third Appellant

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

First Respondent

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment in Federal Court Following Appeal From Federal Circuit Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal failed to consider relevant country information from DFAT about Bangladesh
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal erred in finding it lacked jurisdiction to consider the third appellant as part of its review

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was correct in finding no jurisdiction to consider the third appellant's case as there was no primary decision in respect of her at the relevant time; the Tribunal’s failure to specifically refer to the DFAT country information was immaterial since the appellant’s claim failed for lack of credibility and not credibility of the general conditions in Bangladesh.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The first and second appellants be appointed as litigation representatives of the third appellant, effective from the date of the filing of their notice of appeal.
  • Pursuant to r 1.34 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the requirement to comply with r 9.63(2) is dispensed with.