BRF17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

[2020] FCA 435

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BRF17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2020] FCA 435

Appeal from:	BRF17 v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2018] FCCA 1490
File number:	QUD 415 of 2018
Judge:	REEVES J
Date of judgment:	12 March 2020
Catchwords:	MIGRATION
Legislation:	Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Cases cited:	BRF17 v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2018] FCCA 1490
Date of hearing:	12 March 2020
Registry:	Queensland
Division:	General Division
National Practice Area:	Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Category:	Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	5
Counsel for the Appellant:	The Appellant appeared in person, assisted by an interpreter
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Mr D McLaren of Minter Ellison
Counsel for the Second Respondent:	The Second Respondent filed a Submitting Notice

ORDERS

QUD 415 of 2018

BETWEEN:

BRF17

Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY

Second Respondent

JUDGE:	REEVES J
DATE OF ORDER:	12 MARCH 2020

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The name of the first respondent is amended to “Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs”.

2.The appellant’s notice of appeal filed 22 June 2018 is dismissed.

3.The appellant is to pay the first respondent’s costs of the appeal to be taxed if not agreed.

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

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

REEVES J:

1. This is an appeal from a decision of a judge of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia delivered on 1 June 2018 (BRF17 v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2018] FCCA 1490).

2. The appellant’s notice of appeal filed 22 June 2018 states the following under the heading “Grounds of appeal”:

   (1)The appellant contend that an appeal should be allowed.

   (2)The appellant contend that his Honour Judge Jarrett did not serve the applicant with the court decision, accordingly, the appellant will state the grounds of appeal in a subsequent amended application.

   (Errors in original)

3. The appellant has not filed any subsequent amended notice of appeal. Furthermore, despite being ordered to do so, the appellant has not filed any written outline of submissions in support of the appeal. Accordingly, there is no written statement describing the error allegedly made by the Federal Circuit Court judge. The appellant appeared in person at the hearing of this appeal, assisted by an interpreter. He was asked on numerous occasions to identify the errors in the Federal Circuit Court judge’s decision and he failed to do so. Instead, he said that he had evidence which was not available at the time of the hearing before the Immigration Assessment Authority (Authority) which he wished to submit and that it was unsafe in his home country, Iraq, for him to return there. None of these matters demonstrates error in the Federal Circuit Court judge’s decision.

4. Despite these failings of the appellant, I have carefully read through the judgment of the Federal Circuit Court judge and, having done so, I am unable to detect any error in his treatment of the appellant’s application for judicial review of the Authority’s decision. In particular, I am unable to detect any error in the issue raised by the appellant before the Federal Circuit Court judge about the Authority’s treatment of the complementary protection criterion in s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). On that aspect, I agree with his Honour’s finding at [43] that the Authority clearly appreciated the need to consider the reasonableness of relocation and that the appellant had not identified any particular matter that was before the Authority which bore on that issue to which the Authority did not have regard.

5. For these reasons, I do not consider the appellant has established any error in the decision of the Federal Circuit Court judge and his appeal must therefore be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Reeves.

Associate:       

Dated:       2 April 2020