NWQR v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCAFC 30

NWQR v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCAFC 30

The appellant was not denied procedural fairness due to lack of legal representation before the primary judge; there is no right to funded legal representation in migration judicial review. The Tribunal was not bound to consider parole and protection claim matters not raised by evidence before it. The proposed new grounds, including constitutional and legality grounds, were properly refused as they lacked merit and had been previously rejected by binding authority. Appeal dismissed with costs.

Parties
Appellant: NWQR; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs; Second Respondent: Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Migration / Appeal From Decision of Single Federal Court Judge
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Mandatory Visa Cancellation, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review, Legal Representation, Appeals Process, Non Refoulement, Separation of Powers
Migration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Mandatory Visa Cancellation Procedural Fairness Judicial Review Legal Representation Appeals Process +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NWQR

Appellant

Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

First Respondent

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Migration / Appeal From Decision of Single Federal Court Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was denied procedural fairness due to lack of legal representation
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal failed to consider aspects of protection claims or parole material
  3. 3 Whether leave should be granted to raise new grounds of appeal on constitutional and administrative law bases

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was not denied procedural fairness due to lack of legal representation before the primary judge; there is no right to funded legal representation in migration judicial review. The Tribunal was not bound to consider parole and protection claim matters not raised by evidence before it. The proposed new grounds, including constitutional and legality grounds, were properly refused as they lacked merit and had been previously rejected by binding authority. Appeal dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Submissions filed by the appellant in proceeding NSD 102 of 2021 on 18 February 2021 are to be treated as submissions in reply filed in this appeal
  • Leave to raise the proposed new grounds at paragraphs 2 and 3 of the amended notice of appeal is refused