ANC18 v Minister for Home Affairs

The appeal before this Court is by the appellant, a Nepalese national, against a decision of the Federal Circuit Court which dismissed his application to overturn a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal that had refused him a protection visa. The appellant arrived in Australia in May 2006 as a student, and applied for a protection visa in April 2015. The delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs refused the application in January 2016, and the Tribunal affirmed that decision in January 2018. The appellant appealed to the Federal Circuit Court, which dismissed the appeal in June 2018.

The issues before the Court were whether the Federal Circuit Court erred in refusing to grant an adjournment, and whether the appellant was denied procedural fairness or if there was apprehended bias on the part of the primary judge. The Court noted that the written reasons for the primary judge’s decision were not published until July 2018, though the orders dismissing the appeal were made in June 2018. This delay in publication was noted by the Full Court in Singh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, but the Court held that in the circumstances of this case the late publication did not give rise to any error in the decision. The Court further found that the appellant had not demonstrated any denial of procedural fairness or apprehended bias in the Federal Circuit Court’s handling of the appeal.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the first respondent, to be assessed in default of agreement. The Court held that there was no error in the Federal Circuit Court’s refusal to grant an adjournment, and that the appellant had not demonstrated any procedural unfairness or apprehended bias on the part of the primary judge. The Court further found that the appellant had received an electronic copy of the appeal book in this appeal, and had an opportunity to look at the documents in the appeal book. The appellant did not accept that he had been served with a hard copy, but as the Court has said, the appellant accepted that he was served with an electronic copy. The Court held that the appeal shall be dismissed.