Legal Research
Cases
DAJ19 v Minister for Immigration

DAJ19 v Minister for Immigration

Link copied

Case Copied 5 August 2020 31 min read

Contents

On this page

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DAJ19 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2020] FCCA 2142

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Application for review of decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) – whether the AAT made a fair decision – whether the AAT considered all aspects of the case – ground three lacks merit – no jurisdictional error revealed – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.36, 91X, 424AA, 424A, 476, pt.7, div.4

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.12.02, pt.12

Cases cited:

Nguyen v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1265;

(2000) 101 FCR 20; (2000) 31 AAR 448

SZHTI v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2006] FCA 702

Bodenstein v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 50

SZMCD v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCAFC 46;

(2009) 174 FCR 415

SZBYR v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] HCA 26;

(2007) 81 ALJR 1190; (2007) 235 ALR 609; (2007) 96 ALD 1

Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang

[1996] HCA 6; (1996) 185 CLR 259; (1996) 70 ALJR 568;

(1996) 136 ALR 481; (1996) 41 ALD 1

Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Guo Wei Rong [1997] HCA 22;

(1997) 191 CLR 559; (1997) 64 FCR 151; (1997) 71 ALJR 743;

(1997) 144 ALR 567; (1997) 48 ALD 481

Abebe v The Commonwealth [1999] HCA 14; (1999) 197 CLR 510;

(1999) 73 ALJR 584; (1999) 162 ALR 1; (1999) 55 ALD 1

Randhawa v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs

[1994] FCA 1253; (1994) 52 FCR 437; (1994) 124 ALR 265

Selvadurai v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1994] FCA 1105;

(1994) 34 ALD 347

Guo Wei Rong and Pam Run Juan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs

and Ms S McIllhatton, Member Constituting the Refugee Review Tribunal

[1996] FCA 1263; (1996) 40 ALD 445; (1996) 135 ALR 421

Uma Chand v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs [1997] FCA 1198

Kopalapillai v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs

[1998] FCA 1126; (1998) 86 FCR 547

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Rajalingam

[1999] FCA 719; (1999) 93 FCR 220; (1999) 56 ALD 43

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZVFW [2018] HCA 30;

(2018) 264 CLR 541; (2018) 92 ALJR 713; (2018) 357 ALR 408;

(2018) 75 AAR 434; (2018) 163 ALD 1

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li [2013] HCA 18;

(2013) 249 CLR 332; (2013) 87 ALJR 618; (2013) 297 ALR 225;

(2013) 139 ALD 181

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Stretton [2016] FCAFC 11;

(2016) 237 FCR 1; (2016) 329 ALR 491

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Eden [2016] FCAFC 28;

(2016) 240 FCR 158

DAO16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read DAJ19 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] FCCA 2142
Decision Date: 5 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, DAJ19, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The core of the dispute concerned whether the AAT had conducted a fair review of the applicant's case and considered all relevant aspects before reaching its determination. The matter came before Judge Nicholls in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the AAT had erred in law by failing to adequately consider all aspects of the applicant's case, and whether the AAT's decision was otherwise vitiated by jurisdictional error. The applicant contended that the AAT's review was not fair and that certain aspects of their case had been overlooked.

Judge Nicholls found that the AAT had indeed considered all relevant aspects of the applicant's case and that the applicant's third ground of appeal lacked merit. The Court concluded that no jurisdictional error had been revealed in the AAT's decision-making process. Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed.

Orders