BBT16 v Minister for Home Affairs

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BBT16 v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1225

Appeal from:

BBT16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCCA 631

File number:

VID 357 of 2018

Judge:

COLVIN J

Date of judgment:

16 August 2018

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 36(2A), 36(2)(aa)

Cases cited:

Branir Pty Ltd v Owston Nominees (No 2) Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1833; (2001) 117 FCR 424

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

Nobarani v Mariconte [2018] HCA 36

Date of hearing:

15 August 2018

Registry:

Victoria

Division:

General Division

National Practice Area:

Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Category:

No Catchwords

Number of paragraphs:

19

Counsel for the Appellant:

The Appellant appeared in person assisted by an interpreter

Counsel for the First Respondent:

Mr N Wood

Solicitor for the First Respondent:

DLA Piper Australia

Counsel for the Second Respondent:

The Second Respondent filed a submitting notice save as to costs

ORDERS

VID 357 of 2018

BETWEEN:

BBT16

Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE:	COLVIN J
DATE OF ORDER:	16 AUGUST 2018

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The appellant do pay the first respondent's costs to be assessed if not agreed.

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 is a citizen of Pakistan from Parachinar in Kurram Agency. He arrived in Australia on 5 August 2012. His application for a protection visa was refused. The refusal was affirmed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 11 April 2016. He sought review in the Federal Circuit Court on the basis that part of his claim for complementary protection under s 36(2A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) was not considered by the Tribunal. His review application was not upheld. He now appeals to this Court.

   Appeal grounds

2. The appellant appeared on his own behalf.  His grounds of appeal were expressed as follows:

   The decision of the Federal Circuit Court

   a.Is affected by an error of law; and

   b.Denied me procedural fairness.

3. Expressed in those terms, the appeal grounds disclose no arguable ground of review.  It is necessary to particularise some respect in which there is said to be error in the decision by the Federal Circuit Court.  An appeal to this Court is by way of rehearing and the task of the Court is the correction of error.  The Court does not undertake that task properly by putting the views of the judge below to one side and allowing a simple re-argument of the matter:  Branir Pty Ltd v Owston Nominees (No 2) Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1833; (2001) 117 FCR 424 at [22] and [30] (Allsop J, Drummond and Mansfield JJ agreeing).

4. However, as I said in DQQ17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 784 the consequences of a failure to particularise will depend upon the circumstances: at [8]. It will…