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:
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).
The criteria for a protection visa in…
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2019] FCAFC 18
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.