BCL17 v Minister for Immigration - [2020] FCCA 1670

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BCL17 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2020] FCCA 1670

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Application for review of decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) – whether the decision was made in good faith – whether the decision was made on assumption instead of fact– whether the Tribunal failed to consider a claim – no jurisdictional error revealed – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.36, 476

Cases cited:

SBAP v Refugee Review Tribunal [2002] FCA 590

SBAU v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs

[2002] FCA 1076

SBBS v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs

[2002] FCAFC 361

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs v SBAN

[2002] FCAFC 431

Minister for Immigration v Jia Legeng [2001] HCA 17; (2001) 205 CLR 507;

(2001) 75 ALJR 679; (2001) 178 ALR 421; (2001) 65 ALD 1

VFAB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs

[2003] FCA 872; (2003) 131 FCR 102; (2003) 77 ALD 23

Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte H [2001] HCA 28; (2001) 75 ALJR 982;

(2001) 179 ALR 425

Randhawa v Minister for Immigration, Local Government &Ethnic Affairs

[1994] FCA 1253; (1994) 124 ALR 265

Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Guo Wei Rong [1997] HCA 22;

(1997) 191 CLR 559; (1997) 64 FCR 151; (1997) 71 ALJR 743;

(1997) 144 ALR 567; (1997) 48 ALD 481

AAJ17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 205

NABE v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (No2)

[2004] FCAFC 263; (2004) 144 FCR 1; (2004) 219 ALR 27

Applicant WAEE v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous

Affairs [2003] FCAFC 184; (2003) 256 FCR 593; (2003) 75 ALR 630;

(2003) 75 ALD 630

Applicant:

BCL17

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Second Respondent:

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Number:

SYG 769 of 2017

Judgment of:

Judge Nicholls

Hearing date:

16 June 2020

Date of Last Submission:

16 June 2020

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

25 June 2020

REPRESENTATION

Applicant:

In Person

Representative for the Respondents:

Ms Sangha

Solicitors for the Respondents:

Mills Oakley Lawyers

ORDERS

The application made on 15 March 2017 is dismissed.
The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs set in the amount of $5400.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 769 of 2017

BCL17

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an application made pursuant to s.476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) on 15 March 2017 seeking review of the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”), which affirmed the decision of the Minister’s delegate (“the delegate”) to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa (“the visa”).
The evidence before the Court is contained in a bundle of relevant documents…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read BCL17 v Minister for Immigration and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] FCCA 1670
Decision Date: 25 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

BCL17 (the applicant) sought judicial review of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal). The Minister for Immigration was the respondent. The applicant challenged the Tribunal's decision concerning their application for review.

The core legal issues before the court were whether the Tribunal's decision was made in good faith, whether it was based on assumptions rather than established facts, and whether the Tribunal had failed to consider a specific claim made by the applicant. The court was tasked with determining if any of these grounds constituted a jurisdictional error.

Judge Nicholls found no jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decision. The court concluded that the Tribunal's decision was not vitiated by a lack of good faith, nor was it demonstrably based on assumptions in a manner that would constitute an error. Furthermore, the court was satisfied that the Tribunal had adequately considered the claims put before it. Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed.

Orders