FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DRG17 v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1228
Appeal from: DRG17 v Minister for Home Affairs & Anor [2018] FCCA 221 File number: WAD 53 of 2018 Judge: BANKS-SMITH J Date of judgment: 17 August 2018 Catchwords: MIGRATION – appeal from decision of Federal Circuit Court of Australia to dismiss application for judicial review – whether Immigration Assessment Authority had fallen into jurisdictional error – where primary judge dismissed application – where no error on part of primary judge particularised or established – appeal dismissed Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 36(2)(aa), 46A(2) Cases cited: Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZVFW [2018] HCA 30
Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth [2003] HCA 2; (2003) 211 CLR 476
Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2008] HCA 31; (2008) 235 CLR 286
SLMB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 129
Date of hearing: 9 August 2018 Registry: Western Australia Division: General Division National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 32 Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant appeared in person with the assistance of an interpreter Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms SJ Oliver Solicitor for the First Respondent Sparke Helmore Counsel for the Second Respondent: The Second Respondent filed a submitting notice ORDERS
WAD 53 of 2018 BETWEEN: DRG17
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS
First Respondent
IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
BANKS-SMITH J
DATE OF ORDER:
17 AUGUST 2018
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal is dismissed.
2.The appellant is to pay the first respondent's costs to be assessed if not agreed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BANKS-SMITH J:
This is an appeal from the decision of the Federal Circuit Court dismissing the appellant's application for judicial review of the decision of the Immigration Assessment Authority (Authority) to affirm the Minister's delegate's decision to refuse to grant the appellant a safe haven enterprise visa (SHEV): DRG17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCCA 221.
Background
The appellant is a citizen of Sri Lanka who arrived in Australia as an unauthorised maritime arrival in November 2012.
In December 2015 the Minister exercised his power under s 46A(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act) to allow the appellant to lodge a SHEV.
The appellant lodged an application for a SHEV together with a statutory declaration setting out his claims for protection (summarised below) and he also attended an interview.
On 18 November 2016 a delegate of the Minister refused the appellant's application for a SHEV.
Pursuant to s 473CA of the Act, the delegate's decision was referred to the Authority for fast track review. On 24 November 2016 the Authority wrote to the appellant informing him of the review and informing him that new information could only be considered in limited circumstances.
On 14 December 2016 the Authority received a one page statement…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read DRG17 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
- [2018] FCA 1228
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Authority had fallen into jurisdictional error in affirming the delegate's decision to refuse the appellant's application for a SHEV. The appellant argued that the Authority failed to consider new information provided by the appellant, which included a statement sent by email on 14 December 2016. The appellant contended that the Authority's failure to consider this new information constituted a jurisdictional error. The court was required to determine if the Federal Circuit Court had erred in dismissing the appellant's application for judicial review.
The court found that the Federal Circuit Court had not erred in dismissing the appellant's application for judicial review. The court held that the appellant had not particularised or established any error on the part of the primary judge. The court found that the Authority had considered the appellant's claims and the new information provided by the appellant, and had made a decision on the basis of the evidence before it. The court concluded that the Authority's decision was not affected by any jurisdictional error. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the Minister's costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The appellant is to pay the first respondent's costs to be assessed if not agreed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
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.