CVQ17 v Minister for Home Affairs

Case [2020] FCAFC 60


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CVQ17 v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCAFC 60

Appeal from: Application for leave to appeal:  CVQ17 v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2018] FCCA 2121
File numbers: WAD 438 of 2018
Judges: GREENWOOD, MCKERRACHER AND BURLEY JJ
Date of judgment: 3 April 2020
Catchwords: MIGRATION – consideration of whether the Immigration Assessment Authority (the “IAA”) in reaching its decision in the exercise of its statutory review function relied upon reports and information which were contradicted by, and inconsistent with, other cited reports on material issues relating to safety in the receiving country and in a place of relocation within the receiving country – consideration of the process of reasoning of the IAA – consideration of whether the IAA acted upon “unreliable information” – consideration of whether the IAA reached a decision affected by legal unreasonableness – consideration, in that context, of CRI026 v Republic of Nauru (2018) 355 ALR 216
Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5J, 5H, 36(2)(a), 36(2)(aa), 36(2A), 36(2B)
Cases cited: Belhaven and Stenton Peerage (1875) 1 App. Cas 278
CRI026 v Republic of Nauru (2018) 355 ALR 216
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Singh (2014) 231 FCR 437
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZVFW (2018) 357 ALR 408
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v SGLB (2004) 78 ALJR 992
NAHI v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 10
Date of hearing: 27 February 2019
Date of last submissions: 27 February 2019
Registry: Western Australia
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 2
Counsel for the Appellant: G McIntyre SC
Solicitor for the Appellant: D’Angelo Legal
Counsel for the Respondents: P R Macliver
Solicitor for the Respondents: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

WAD 438 of 2018
BETWEEN:

CVQ17

Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY

Second Respondent

JUDGES:

GREENWOOD, MCKERRACHER AND BURLEY JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

3 APRIL 2020

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal is dismissed. 

2.The appellant pay the costs of the first respondent of and incidental to the appeal. 

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


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

GREENWOOD J:

  1. This appeal from orders of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia dismissing the appellant’s application before that Court for judicial review (and the grant of the constitutional writs) of a decision of the Immigration Assessment Authority (the “IAA”) affirming a decision of the Minister’s delegate to refuse the appellant’s application for the grant of a Safe Haven visa, was heard together with appeals by appellants BJI17, CNV17 and BYG17.  The orders made in this appeal are that the appeal is dismissed and the appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal.  The reasons which explain the basis for making those orders are set out in the reasons for judgment of Greenwood J (McKerracher and Burley JJ agreeing) in BJI17 v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCAFC 58. The reasons in this appeal are to be read together with the reasons in appeal BJI17 which address the contentions on appeal by each of appellants BJI17, CNV17, CVQ17 and BYG17 (both as to matters specific to each appellant and as to matters of principle submitted on behalf of all four appellants). 

I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraph is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Greenwood.

Associate:

Dated:       3 April 2020

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

McKERRACHER AND BURLEY JJ:

  1. We agree that the appeal must be dismissed with costs for the reasons given by Greenwood J.

We certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraph is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justices McKerracher and Burley.

Associate:

Dated:       3 April 2020

Details
AGLC
CVQ17 v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCAFC 60
Case
[2020] FCAFC 60
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, CVQ17, challenged a decision of the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) in the Federal Court, arguing that the IAA's review of the decision to transfer him from Australia to another country was flawed. The central issue was whether the IAA, in its review function, appropriately considered reports and information that contradicted other reports on safety in the receiving country and a potential relocation within that country. The appellant claimed that the IAA acted on unreliable information and reached a decision that was legally unreasonable.

The court examined the process of reasoning employed by the IAA and whether it appropriately balanced the conflicting reports. The court noted that the IAA's function was to review the original decision, not to conduct its own independent assessment. The court found that the IAA had correctly identified and considered the conflicting reports but did not act upon unreliable information. The court also held that the IAA's decision was not affected by legal unreasonableness, as it had provided sufficient reasons for its decision and had considered the safety concerns raised by the appellant.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the IAA had appropriately exercised its review function. The appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the first respondent of and incidental to the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the costs of the first respondent of and incidental to the appeal.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.