BBW17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

BBW17 brought a judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Assessment Authority to affirm the Minister's delegate's refusal of their application for a protection visa. The Authority's decision was that the appellant was not a person at risk of harm on account of their past experiences in Sri Lanka or their imputed links to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. The appellant sought to amend their grounds of appeal during the hearing of the appeal to the Federal Circuit Court, but the primary judge refused the application to amend. The appellant now appeals to the Full Court, arguing that the primary judge erred in refusing the amendment application, and that leave was not required to raise the new ground of appeal. The new ground is that the Authority failed to consider the cumulative significance of the factual claims in the protection visa application. The Full Court held that there was no merit in the new ground, and no error in the primary judge’s exercise of discretion to refuse the amendment application. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The issues before the court were whether the primary judge erred in refusing the amendment application and whether leave was required to raise the new ground of appeal. The Full Court found that the new ground of appeal had no merit, as the Authority had considered the appellant's factual claims and determined that they did not establish a real chance of serious harm. The court also found that the primary judge did not err in refusing the amendment application, as the new ground of appeal was not arguable and would not have succeeded. The Full Court held that the appeal was dismissed with costs, as the appellant had not demonstrated any error in the primary judge's decision.