Acquino v Minister for Immigration

Case [2013] FCCA 897


FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ACQUINO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2013] FCCA 897
Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where Court has no jurisdiction – whether Court can transfer proceedings to Federal Court of Australia.

Legislation:

Migration Act1958 s.501(2)

Fisher v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2007) 162 FCR 299
Applicant: TRACY VAL ACQUINO
Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP
File Number: BRG 482 of 2013
Judgment of: Judge Jarrett
Hearing date: 22 July 2013
Date of Last Submission: 22 July 2013
Delivered at: Brisbane
Delivered on: 23 July 2013

REPRESENTATION

Representative with leave for

 the Applicant:

Mr Sloss
Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms O’Connor
Solicitors for the Respondent: Clayton Utz

ORDERS

  1. The application filed on 12 June, 2013 be transferred to Federal Court of Australia to be listed in that Court on a date to be fixed.

  2. Each parties’ costs of today be reserved.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT BRISBANE

BRG 482 of 2013

TRACY VAL ACQUINO

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This application came before me on its first court date on 22 July, 2013. The applicant immediately conceded that this Court had no jurisdiction to grant the relief sought in the proceedings. By his application he seeks relief against a decision of the respondent that was made pursuant to s.501(2) of the Migration Act1958. This Court has no jurisdiction to deal with such claims for relief.

  2. The applicant sought the matter be transferred to the Federal Court of Australia. The respondent neither consented to, nor opposed, that course.

  3. I was concerned that, given that there was agreement between the parties that this Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the applicant’s claim, the Court could in fact make an order that transferred the matter to the Federal Court. Neither party was able to assist me with any authorities which dealt with that issue.

  4. I have since had the opportunity of considering the matter. I am satisfied that this Court has the power to make an order transferring the proceedings to the Federal Court of Australia notwithstanding that the Court has no jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed by the applicant in the proceedings: Fisher v Minister for immigration and Citizenship (2007) 162 FCR 299.

  5. Accordingly, I order the matter be transferred to the Federal Court of Australia to be listed in that court on a date to be fixed.

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Jarrett delivered on 23 July, 2013.

Associate: 

Date:  23 July 2013

Details
AGLC
ACQUINO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2013] FCCA 897
Case
[2013] FCCA 897
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Acquino v Minister for Immigration*, the applicant, Mr. Acquino, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration to refuse his application for a protection visa. The dispute centred on whether Mr. Acquino met the criteria for a protection visa under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth). The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the delegate of the Minister had erred in finding that Mr. Acquino did not hold a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of his membership of a particular social group, as defined by the Refugee Convention. This required the Court to consider the nature of the alleged persecution, the applicant's claimed membership of a particular social group, and whether the fear was objectively reasonable in the circumstances.

Judge Jarrett reasoned that the delegate's assessment of the applicant's fear was flawed. The Court applied the principles established in *Chan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs* and *Applicant S20/2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs*, which require a careful and objective assessment of the evidence to determine if a fear of persecution is well-founded. The Court found that the delegate had failed to adequately consider certain aspects of the evidence relating to the applicant's claimed social group and the potential for harm he faced. Consequently, the Court concluded that the decision under review was affected by an error of law.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.