AZAFF v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

[2016] FCA 80

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AZAFF v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 80

Appeal from:	AZAFF v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCCA 1133
File number(s):	SAD 141 of 2015
Judge(s):	GRIFFITHS J
Date of judgment:	16 February 2016
Catchwords:	MIGRATION – appeal from a decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia where independent protection assessor rejected claims of two sisters for protection visas -  whether primary judge erred in rejecting appellant’s claims that independent protection assessor fell into jurisdictional error by denying procedural fairness, making findings without obtaining expert evidence and making a decision which was unreasonable, illogical or irrational.
Date of hearing:	25 August 2015
Registry:	Adelaide
Division:	General Division
National Practice Area:	Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Category:	Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	2
Counsel for the Appellant:	D F O’Leary
Solicitor for the Appellant:	P D Stirling
Counsel for the First and Second Respondents:	R Knowles
Solicitor for the First and Second Respondents:	Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

SAD 141 of 2015

BETWEEN:

AZAFF BY HER LITIGATION GUARDIAN SISTER MARY SYMONDS RSM
Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION
First Respondent

ROGER FORDHAM, INDEPENDENT PROTECTION ASSESSMENT REVIEWER
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	GRIFFITHS J
DATE OF ORDER:	16 FEBRUARY 2016

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.There be no order as to costs. 

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

GRIFFITHS J:

1. This appeal was heard at the same time as the related appeal in AZAFG by her litigation guardian Sister Mary Symonds RSM v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 81 (AZAFG).  The appellant is the older sister of AZAFG.  As noted in AZAFG, the relevant facts in the two appeals are substantially similar and the same submissions were made on behalf of both appellants. 

2. For the reasons given in AZAFG, AZAFF’s appeal must also be dismissed.  The Minister did not seek his costs. 

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

Associate:

Dated:       16 February 2016