M111 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 97

M111 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 97

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicants did not show that the primary judge's decision was attended with sufficient doubt. The procedural fairness claim failed because the applicants' advisers had made submissions about Cable CL98, and the misconceived-task claim failed because the Tribunal expressly considered and rejected the contention that the applicants were accused of LTTE support due to the applicant wife's parents living in LTTE controlled territory. The proposed new grounds were attempts to review factual and merits findings and did not disclose jurisdictional error.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Migration Application for Leave to Appeal Concerning Refusal of an Order Nisi for Writs of Certiorari and Prohibition in Relation to Refusal of Protection Visas / Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['protection Visas' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'procedural Fairness' 'jurisdictional Error' 'order Nisi' 'writs of Certiorari and Prohibition' 'leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Judgment' 'delay and Time Limits']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'practice and Procedure'] ['protection Visas' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'procedural Fairness' 'jurisdictional Error' 'order Nisi' 'writs of Certiorari and Prohibition' 'leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Judgment' 'delay and Time Limits']

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 Concerning Refusal of an Order Nisi for Writs of Certiorari and Prohibition in Relation to Refusal of Protection Visas / Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the primary judge's refusal of an Order Nisi for Writs of Certiorari and Prohibition." 'Whether the Tribunal denied procedural fairness by relying on Cable CL98 without giving the applicants an opportunity to respond.' "Whether the Tribunal misconceived its task by identifying the applicants' claim as based on Burgher ethnicity rather than alleged imputed LTTE support arising from the applicant wife's parents living in LTTE controlled territory." 'Whether new grounds concerning relocation and neighbour harassment disclosed jurisdictional error.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicants did not show that the primary judge's decision was attended with sufficient doubt. The procedural fairness claim failed because the applicants' advisers had made submissions about Cable CL98, and the misconceived-task claim failed because the Tribunal expressly considered and rejected the contention that the applicants were accused of LTTE support due to the applicant wife's parents living in LTTE controlled territory. The proposed new grounds were attempts to review factual and merits findings and did not disclose jurisdictional error.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' "The applicants to pay the respondents' costs."]