FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| CST15 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2018] FCCA 2660 |
| Catchwords: MIGRATION – Protection visa – 25 grounds of review of tribunal’s decision advanced – no particulars – none meritorious. |
| Legislation: Migration Act 1958, ss.36(2)(a), 36(2)(aa), 477(2)(a) |
| Applicant: | CST15 |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION |
| Second Respondent: | ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | MLG 2811 of 2015 |
| Judgment of: | His Honour Judge Wilson |
| Hearing date: | 17 May 2018 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 17 May 2018 |
| Delivered at: | Melbourne |
| Delivered on: | 28 August 2018 |
REPRESENTATION
| Solicitors… |
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read CST15 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
- [2018] FCCA 2660
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicant, CST15, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Minister for Immigration. The dispute concerned the refusal of a protection visa. The matter came before His Honour Judge Wilson in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
The court was required to consider whether the Minister's decision to refuse the protection visa was affected by any error of law. The applicant advanced twenty-five grounds of review, alleging various deficiencies in the decision-making process.
His Honour Judge Wilson found that none of the twenty-five grounds of review advanced by the applicant had sufficient particulars to be considered meritorious. Consequently, the court concluded that no error of law had been demonstrated. The application for judicial review was therefore dismissed.
The court was required to consider whether the Minister's decision to refuse the protection visa was affected by any error of law. The applicant advanced twenty-five grounds of review, alleging various deficiencies in the decision-making process.
His Honour Judge Wilson found that none of the twenty-five grounds of review advanced by the applicant had sufficient particulars to be considered meritorious. Consequently, the court concluded that no error of law had been demonstrated. The application for judicial review was therefore dismissed.
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.