Dharma v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCA 550

Dharma v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCA 550

Neither ground of review is made out. The Tribunal afforded procedural fairness and impartiality, took into account relevant materials, properly considered the impact on the applicant's children, and did not err in considering unproven charges as background material. There was no jurisdictional error.

Parties
Applicant: Sena Aji Dharma; First Respondent: Minister for Home Affairs; Second Respondent: Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Bias, Irrelevant Material, Jurisdictional Error, Cancellation of Visa, Ministerial Direction No. 79
Migration Law Administrative Law Procedural Fairness Bias Irrelevant Material Jurisdictional Error Cancellation of Visa Ministerial Direction No. 79

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sena Aji Dharma

Applicant

Minister for Home Affairs

First Respondent

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a denial of procedural fairness by the Tribunal
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal took into account irrelevant material or failed to consider relevant material
  3. 3 Whether there was bias or lack of impartiality by the Tribunal

Ratio Decidendi

Neither ground of review is made out. The Tribunal afforded procedural fairness and impartiality, took into account relevant materials, properly considered the impact on the applicant's children, and did not err in considering unproven charges as background material. There was no jurisdictional error.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The proceeding is dismissed.
  • The Applicant is to pay the costs of the Respondent, either as agreed or taxed.