EDU16 v Minister for Immigration - [2019] FCCA 2449

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

EDU16 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2019] FCCA 2449

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Judicial Review – Temporary Protection Visa – whether the Immigration Assessment’s Authority is affected by jurisdictional error – no error.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.36, 65, 473CB, 473DD, 473DE

Cases cited:

ARG15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 250 FCR 109
CQG15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 146 PlaintiffM174/2016 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] HCA16
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZUXN [2016] FCA 5
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611
Minster for Immigration and Border Protection v BBS16 [2017] FCAFC 176
Plaintiff M174/2016 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] HCA 16

Applicant:

EDU16

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent:

IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY

File Number:

MLG 2838 of 2016

Judgment of:

Judge Obradovic

Hearing date:

3 September 2018

Date of Last Submission:

3 September 2018

Delivered at:

Parramatta

Delivered on:

3 September 2019

REPRESENTATION

Appearing for the Applicant:

Self-Represented

Counsel for the First Respondent:

Ms Whittemore

Solicitors for the First Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Appearing for the Second Respondent:	No appearance

ORDERS

The Application filed 29 December 2016 is dismissed.
The Applicant is to pay the First Respondent’s costs as agreed or assessed.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLG 2838 of 2016

EDU16

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

These are Reasons for Judgment in respect of an application for judicial review of a decision of the Immigration Assessment Authority (“IAA”) dated 5 December 2016, which affirmed the decision of the delegate of the Minster to refuse the grant of a Temporary Protection (Subclass 785) Visa to the applicant (“TPV”).
To obtain relief from the Court, the applicant must show that the IAA’s decision is affected by jurisdictional error. A decision affected by jurisdictional error is, as a matter of law, no decision at all. A jurisdictional error in the requisite sense of these proceedings can be understood as an error which has led the IAA to somehow fail to fulfil its duty and function of reviewing the decision of the delegate.
The application raises four grounds of review:
a)The IAA's finding that the applicant was abducted and persecuted in 2012 due to his business and wealth and not due to his involvement or support for the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ealam (“LTTE”) was so illogical and irrational reasoning which was not supported by evidence.
b)The IAA did not assess that applicant's claim cumulatively being a wealthy Tamil of perceived political opinion against the government of Sri Lanka due to his brother's link with the LTTE.
c)The IAA did not assess the Applicant's integer claims of being a Young wealthy Tamil from the North of Sri Lanka with perceived LTTE political opinion.
d)The IAA has not complied with ss473DD and 473DE of the Migration Act

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 EDU16 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: [2019] FCCA 2449
Decision Date: 3 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, EDU16, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) concerning their application for a Temporary Protection Visa. The Minister for Immigration was the respondent. The core of the dispute concerned whether the IAA's decision was affected by jurisdictional error.

The primary legal issue before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was whether the IAA had made a jurisdictional error in its assessment of EDU16's application. This required the Court to consider the scope of the IAA's powers and the procedural fairness owed to the applicant during the assessment process.

Judge Obradovic found that the IAA had not committed jurisdictional error. The Court's reasoning focused on the established legal principles governing judicial review of administrative decisions, particularly concerning the IAA's mandate. The Court concluded that the IAA had acted within its powers and had afforded the applicant the necessary procedural fairness, meaning its decision was not vitiated by jurisdictional error.

Orders