WZARE v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2013] FCA 122

WZARE v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2013] FCA 122

Leave to amend the notice of appeal was refused because each proposed ground lacked merit. There was no obvious inquiry that the Tribunal was required to make of the appellant's mother, as her direct evidence about threatening telephone calls would not have added materially to what the appellant had already told the Tribunal and would not have supplied a sufficient link to the outcome. The Tribunal's conclusions rejecting the family feud claim and finding insufficient evidence that relatives of state security officers were targeted were open on the material and were not shown to be illogical, irrational or affected by jurisdictional error. The appeal was therefore dismissed with costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal From the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia Concerning a Protection Visa Decision / Application for Leave to Amend Notice of Appeal and Appeal
Outcome
Leave to amend the notice of appeal refused; appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'well Founded Fear of Persecution' 'complementary Protection' 'jurisdictional Error' 'procedural Fairness' 'failure to Make Obvious Inquiry' 'refugee Review Tribunal Review']
['migration' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa' 'well Founded Fear of Persecution' 'complementary Protection' 'jurisdictional Error' 'procedural Fairness' 'failure to Make Obvious Inquiry' 'refugee Review Tribunal Review']

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 Appeal From the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia Concerning a Protection Visa Decision / Application for Leave to Amend Notice of Appeal and Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to amend the notice of appeal to raise three fresh grounds.' "Whether the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error by failing to make an obvious inquiry of the appellant's mother about threatening telephone calls." "Whether the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error by rejecting the appellant's claims of a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm arising from his father's employment with state security." "Whether the Tribunal's treatment of the evidence about threatening telephone calls was illogical or irrational." 'Whether the Tribunal was required to apply the so-called "What if I am wrong?" approach.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend the notice of appeal was refused because each proposed ground lacked merit. There was no obvious inquiry that the Tribunal was required to make of the appellant's mother, as her direct evidence about threatening telephone calls would not have added materially to what the appellant had already told the Tribunal and would not have supplied a sufficient link to the outcome. The Tribunal's conclusions rejecting the family feud claim and finding insufficient evidence that relatives of state security officers were targeted were open on the material and were not shown to be illogical, irrational or affected by jurisdictional error. The appeal was therefore dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Leave to amend the notice of appeal refused; appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Leave to amend the notice of appeal be refused.' 'The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal to be taxed, if not agreed."]