FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| CEW18 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION | [2020] FCCA 10 |
| Catchwords: MIGRATION – Review of decision of a delegate of the Minister that the applicant is an excluded fast track applicant – applicant found to have provided a bogus identity document – whether the finding was a jurisdictional fact considered - whether the delegate made irrational or illogical findings considered – no jurisdictional error established. |
| Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.5, 57, 91WA, 101, 108 |
| Applicant: | CEW18 |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS |
| File Number: | SYG 786 of 2018 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Driver |
| Hearing date: | 9 December 2019 |
| Date of last submission: | 19 December 2019 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 19 March 2020 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr N Poynder |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Ryburn Solicitors |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Ms R Graycar |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | HWL Ebsworth |
ORDERS
The application as…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read CEW18 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2020] FCCA 10
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
CEW18 (the applicant) sought judicial review of a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration (the respondent) to refuse to grant a protection visa. The delegate had determined that the applicant was an "excluded fast track applicant" on the basis that the applicant had provided a bogus identity document. The applicant contended that this finding was affected by jurisdictional error.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the delegate's finding that the applicant had provided a bogus identity document constituted a jurisdictional error. This required the Court to consider whether this finding was a jurisdictional fact, and if so, whether the delegate's reasoning in reaching that finding was irrational or illogical.
Judge Driver found that the delegate's finding that the applicant had provided a bogus identity document was not a jurisdictional fact. The Court held that the delegate's reasoning, while perhaps open to criticism, was not so irrational or illogical as to vitiate the decision. Accordingly, no jurisdictional error was established.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the delegate's finding that the applicant had provided a bogus identity document constituted a jurisdictional error. This required the Court to consider whether this finding was a jurisdictional fact, and if so, whether the delegate's reasoning in reaching that finding was irrational or illogical.
Judge Driver found that the delegate's finding that the applicant had provided a bogus identity document was not a jurisdictional fact. The Court held that the delegate's reasoning, while perhaps open to criticism, was not so irrational or illogical as to vitiate the decision. Accordingly, no jurisdictional error was established.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.