FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
CCL17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 1620
Appeal from: CCL17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FedCFamC2G 721 File number: VID 559 of 2022 Judgment of: DERRINGTON J Date of judgment: 19 December 2023 Catchwords: MIGRATION – determination by Immigration Assessment Authority not to grant Safe Haven Enterprise visa – whether material error arising from erroneous application of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 473DD – whether Authority conducted de novo review to extent required in circumstances where appellant relied on claims made by uncle in separate visa application – consideration of principles regarding scope of de novo review to be conducted by Authority – whether Secretary of Department of Immigration and Border Protection gave all relevant “review material” to Authority as required by s 473CB – appeal dismissed Cases cited: CCM17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 1619 Division: General Division Registry: Victoria National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Number of paragraphs: 2 Date of hearing: 9 November 2023 Counsel for the Appellant: Dr A McBeth Solicitor for the Appellant: Bardo Lawyers Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms E Hoiberg Solicitor for the First Respondent: Sparke Helmore Lawyers Counsel for the Second Respondent: The Second Respondent did not appear ORDERS
VID 559 of 2022 BETWEEN: CCL17
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent
IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
DERRINGTON J
DATE OF ORDER:
19 DECEMBER 2023
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal is dismissed.
2.The appellant is to pay the first respondent’s costs.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
DERRINGTON J:
Introduction
This appeal was heard together with the appeal in CCM17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (VID 558 of 2022). The appellant in this proceeding and CCM17, the appellant in that related proceeding, are brothers. Their respective applications for a Safe Haven Enterprise (Subclass 790) visa were brought on the same grounds. The grounds of appeal in this proceeding were the same as those in CCM17’s proceeding, and the same submissions were advanced on behalf of both appellants jointly.
Conclusion
For the reasons given in CCM17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 1619, the appeal in this matter must also be dismissed. Similarly, for the reasons there given, the same order as to costs should be made.
I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Derrington. Associate:
Dated: 19 December 2023
- AGLC
- CCL17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 1620
- Case
- [2023] FCA 1620
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to decide whether the Authority made a material error by erroneously applying section 473DD of the Migration Act and whether it conducted a de novo review to the extent required, given the reliance on the uncle's claims. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection provided all relevant "review material" to the Authority as mandated by section 473CB of the Act. The court also needed to examine the principles governing the scope of the de novo review that the Authority must conduct.
The court found that the appeal should be dismissed based on the reasoning provided in the related proceeding, CCM17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 1619. The court concluded that the Authority had not made a material error and had conducted a sufficient de novo review. It also found that the Secretary had provided all necessary review material to the Authority. Consequently, the court ordered that the appeal be dismissed and that the appellant pay the first respondent’s costs. This decision followed the same reasoning and outcome as in the related proceeding, as detailed in the earlier judgment.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The appellant is to pay the first respondent’s costs.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.