DED16 v Minister for Home Affairs

Link copied
Case Copied 10 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DED16 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 18

Appeal from: DED16 v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2018] FCCA 3074
File number: VID 1152 of 2018
Judges: BROMBERG, KERR AND CHARLESWORTH JJ
Date of judgment: 7 February 2019
Catchwords: MIGRATION – Appeal from judgment of Federal Circuit Court of Australia on judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – Tribunal affirming a decision to refuse to grant a protection visa to a Nepalese citizen – Tribunal finding the visa applicant had not taken all possible steps to avail himself of a right to enter and reside in India within the meaning of s 36(3) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Tribunal having regard to evidence of the existence of an administrative arrangement published on an Indian government website – whether in all cases s 36(3) requires the decision-maker to have regard to the source of a right of entry and residence given by, or arising out of, an administrative arrangement – no jurisdictional error detected by primary judge – no appealable error in judgment appealed from
Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 36
Cases cited:

DED16 v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2018] FCCA 3074

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZUSU (2016) 237 FCR 305

Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship v SZRHU (2013) 215 FCR 35

MZZXS v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 1384

SZTOX v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCAFC 77

V856/00A v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2001) 114 FCR 408

Date of hearing: 7 February 2019
Registry: Victoria
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 16
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr D Yarrow with Mr M Peckham
Solicitor for the Appellant: Asylum Seeker Resource Centre
Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms C Symons
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Clayton Utz
Counsel for the Second Respondent: The Second Respondent filed a Submitting Notice

ORDERS

VID 1152 of 2018
BETWEEN:

DED16

Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGES:

BROMBERG, KERR AND CHARLESWORTH JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

7 FEBRUARY 2019

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal is dismissed.

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


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

  1. By his amended notice of appeal, the appellant appeals from a judgment of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia made on 24 August 2018 and published as DED16 v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2018] FCCA 3074. The primary judge dismissed the appellant’s application seeking judicial review of a decision of the second respondent, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal).  The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs (Minister) to refuse to grant to the appellant a Protection (Class XA) visa (visa).

  2. The criteria for a protection visa in…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read DED16 v Minister for Home Affairs 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
[2019] FCAFC 18
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Court of Australia considered an appeal from the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, which had reviewed a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) to deny a protection visa to a Nepalese citizen. The AAT's decision was based on a finding that the visa applicant had not taken all possible steps to utilise a right to enter and reside in India, in accordance with section 36(3) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The AAT considered evidence of an administrative arrangement, published on an Indian government website, to support its decision. The central legal issue was whether section 36(3) of the Migration Act mandates that, in every instance, the decision-maker must consider the source of a right of entry and residence derived from an administrative arrangement.

The Federal Court examined whether the primary judge had erred in concluding that the AAT's decision was correct and that there was no appealable error. The court held that the AAT's consideration of the administrative arrangement was consistent with the legal requirements under section 36(3). The court found no jurisdictional error in the primary judge's judgment and affirmed that the AAT's decision was correctly made. The court found no basis to overturn the AAT's decision or to identify any appealable error in the judgment of the primary judge.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Federal Court upheld the decision of the AAT to deny the protection visa to the Nepalese citizen. The court's decision underscored the importance of the visa applicant taking all possible steps to utilise a right to enter and reside in India, as required by section 36(3) of the Migration Act. The court's ruling reinforced the need for applicants to demonstrate compliance with the legislative provisions concerning protection visas.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

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.