AJO15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

Case [2018] FCA 203

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AJO15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 203

Appeal from: AJO15 v Minister for Immigration & Ors [2017] FCCA 2547
File number: NSD 1508 of 2017
Judge: BESANKO J
Date of judgment: 20 February 2018
Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 36.75
Date of hearing: 20 February 2018
Registry: New South Wales
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Category: No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 2
Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant did not appear
Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms B Rayment
Solicitor for the First Respondents: Sparke Helmore Lawyers
Counsel for the Second and Third Respondents: The Second and Third Respondents entered a submitting notice, save as to costs

ORDERS

NSD 1508 of 2017
BETWEEN:

AJO15

Appellant
AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent

MILAN OZEGOVIC, DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION

Third Respondent

JUDGE:

BESANKO J

DATE OF ORDER:

20 FEBRUARY 2018

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The Appellant pay the First Respondent’s costs, to be assessed in default of agreement

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BESANKO J:

  1. I am satisfied that the Appellant had notice of the hearing fixed for today. The Appellant has not appeared. I think it is appropriate to make an order under r 36.75(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) that the appeal be dismissed with costs.

  2. I refer to the email from the Court to the parties on 28 December 2017 and the letter from the solicitors for the First Respondent to the Appellant dated 12 February 2018, both of which will be retained on the Court file.  I also refer to the information provided to the Court by Ms Rayment about the attempt to contact the Appellant.  That information is as follows:  the interpreter called the Appellant on the number in the Notice of Appeal, [appellant’s mobile telephone number], and the phone did not answer but went direct to voice message, so there has been no contact with the Appellant during the short adjournment.

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Besanko.

Associate:        

Dated:        1 March 2018

Details
AGLC
AJO15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 203
Case
[2018] FCA 203
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the matter of AJO15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection was heard and determined. The Appellant, AJO15, sought review of a decision made by the First Respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, which resulted in the cancellation of the Appellant's visa. The Appellant challenged the decision on the basis of alleged procedural unfairness and errors in the assessment of the evidence.

The court was tasked with determining whether the decision-maker had adhered to procedural fairness, particularly in relation to the provision of information and the opportunity for the Appellant to respond. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the decision was supported by the evidence and whether the decision-maker had correctly applied the relevant legal principles. The Appellant argued that there were significant procedural flaws and that the decision was not supported by the evidence. The Respondent contended that the decision was made in accordance with the law and procedural fairness was observed.

The court found that the decision-maker had followed the correct procedures and provided the Appellant with adequate information and opportunity to respond. The court held that the decision was supported by the evidence and that the decision-maker had correctly applied the relevant legal principles. The Appellant's arguments regarding procedural unfairness and evidentiary errors were not substantiated. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The Appellant was ordered to pay the First Respondent’s costs, to be assessed if the parties could not agree on the amount.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The Appellant pay the First Respondent’s costs, to be assessed in default of agreement

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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.