DRG17 v Minister for Home Affairs

Link copied
Case Copied 15 min read

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:

  1. 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

  2. The appellant is a citizen of Sri Lanka who arrived in Australia as an unauthorised maritime arrival in November 2012.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. On 18 November 2016 a delegate of the Minister refused the appellant's application for a SHEV.

  6. 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.

  7. On 14 December 2016 the Authority received a one page statement…

CaseChat AU logo

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
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
[2018] FCA 1228
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the court was from a decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, which dismissed the appellant's application for judicial review of a decision made by the Immigration Assessment Authority (Authority). The appellant, a citizen of Sri Lanka, had applied for a safe haven enterprise visa (SHEV) on the basis of protection claims related to his treatment by the Sri Lankan Army (SLA) due to his Tamil ethnicity and imputed links with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The Authority affirmed the decision of the Minister's delegate to refuse the appellant's application for a SHEV. The appellant's application for judicial review of the Authority's decision was dismissed by the Federal Circuit Court, and the appellant now appealed that decision.

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

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 by email (Email) from the Appellant, setting out comments as to why he said he was not treated fairly by the delegate. On 18 July 2017 the Authority decided to affirm the decision not to grant the appellant a SHEV. The appellant applied to the Federal Circuit Court for judicial review of the Authority's decision and that application was dismissed. The appellant now appeals from the decision of the Federal Circuit Court.The protection claims In summary, the protection claims made by the appellant in his SHEV application and considered by the Authority were as follows:(a)in February 2011 the appellant's cousin accused an officer of the Sri Lankan Army (SLA) of touching her inappropriately; (b)the appellant, his cousin and his parents reported the incident to the officer's superior, and accordingly the appellant came to the adverse attention of the officer;(c)about one month after the incident, the appellant was stopped by the officer and was hit;(d)the appellant was beaten frequently over the next few months and when he refused to buy the officer further cigarettes, he was interrogated at an army check point and accused of having connections with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE);(e)he was beaten unconscious and woke up in an abandoned house. He returned home and SLA officers went to his house and beat him in his bedroom. A few hours later seven to eight SLA officers came to the outside of his house, so the appellant and his family escaped through the back exit;(f)he subsequently went into hiding in Batticaloa where he was frequently questioned by unknown persons;(g)he returned to his parent's house in Jaffna after finding out that his father was ill. After one week, SLA officers came to the house as they were aware he had returned and requested he report to the army camp;(h)he returned to Batticaloa as a result and made arrangements to leave the country;(i)the officer has continued to search for the appellant since his departure from Sri Lanka;(j)if returned to Sri Lanka, the appellant fears he will be seriously harmed or killed by the SLA on account of his Tamil ethnicity and imputed LTTE links.Before the Authority

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.