APV15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

[2018] FCA 785

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

APV15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 785

Appeal from:

APV15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCCA 2608

File number:

WAD 560 of 2017

Judge:

COLVIN J

Date of judgment:

31 May 2018

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 474

Cases cited:

APV15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCCA 2608

DQQ17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 784

SZNOE v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCA 96

Date of hearing:

10 May 2018

Registry:

Western Australia

Division:

General Division

National Practice Area:

Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Category:

No Catchwords

Number of paragraphs:

18

Counsel for the Appellant:

The Appellant appeared in person, assisted by an interpreter

Counsel for the First Respondent:

Ms EL Tattersall

Solicitor for the First Respondent:

Sparke Helmore Lawyers

Counsel for the Second Respondent:

The Second Respondent filed a submitting notice, save as to costs

ORDERS

WAD 560 of 2017

BETWEEN:

APV15

Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE:	COLVIN J
DATE OF ORDER:	31 MAY 2018

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The appellant do pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal fixed at $3,500.

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

COLVIN J:

1. The appellant arrived in Australia by boat and sought a protection visa.  His application was refused by a delegate of the Minister.  An application to the Refugee Review Tribunal to review the refusal was unsuccessful.  An application for judicial review by the Federal Circuit Court was refused and the appellant now brings an appeal against that decision in this Court.

2. The notice of appeal advances one ground, namely 'jurisdictional error - due to not following the law/or facts presented in the evidence'.

3. In written submissions, the Minister said that without particularisation the appellant's ground did not disclose jurisdictional error.  It characterised the sole ground as one which sought to advance a claim that there had been error by the Tribunal rather than error by the Federal Circuit Court and this was impermissible.  I have dealt with the proper approach where an appeal ground in a case of this kind lacks particularisation in DQQ17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 784.

4. At the hearing of the appeal, the appellant was given an opportunity to explain orally his concern with the decision by the Federal Circuit Court.  He advanced only one matter in support of the appeal.  It concerned the description of the appellant as a skipper on his fisherman identity card.  He said that if he was returned to Sri Lanka then he would be suspected of people smuggling and would be jailed by the authorities in Sri Lanka.  He said he would be suspected because the card described him as a skipper and he would be returned as a person who had left…