EGA18 v Minister for Immigration - [2020] FCCA 2404

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

EGA18 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2020] FCCA 2404

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Application for judicial review – safe haven enterprise visa – Immigration Assessment Authority – no matters of principle – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), pt.7AA, s.473DC

Cases cited:

BVD17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] HCA 34

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZGUR [2011] HCA 1

FOA18 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and

Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 815

ASB17 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 38

BLS17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 1079

SG17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and

Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCAFC 29

DGZ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 12;

258 FCR 551

FSG17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and

Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCAFC 29

DYK16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 222

DBA16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1580

DPI17 v Minister for Home Affairs[2019] FCAFC 43

Minister for Immigration & Border Protection v CRY16 [2017] FCAFC 210; (2017) 253 FCR 475

BJK17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and

Multicultural Affairs [2019] FCAFC 171

DPV18 v Minister For Home Affairs & Anor [2019] FCCA 2762

BLU18 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and

Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 706

FND17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and

Multicultural Affairs [2019] FCA 1369

DIN16 v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCA 406

BMA16 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and

Multicultural Affairs [2019] FCA 1938

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZRKT [2013] FCA 317

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v MZYTS [2013] FCAFC 114

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZSRS [2014] FCAFC 16

ARG15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 174

ETA067 v The Republic of Nauru [2018] HCA 46

BUD17 v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCAFC 140

VAAD v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2005] FCAFC 117

VAAD v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2005] FCAFC 117

Minister for Aboriginal AffairsvPeko- Wallsend Ltd [1986] HCA 40; (1986)

162 CLR 24

M174/2016 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] HCA 16

Applicant:

EGA18

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Second Respondent:

IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY

File Number:

MLG 2457 of 2018

Judgment of:

Judge Riethmuller

Hearing date:

21 May 2020

Date of Last Submission:

28 May 2020

Delivered at:

Melbourne

Delivered on:

28 August 2020

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Ms Hammond

Solicitors for the Applicant:

King & Wood Mallesons

Counsel for the First Respondent:

Mr Yuile

Solicitors for the First Respondent:

Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

The application be dismissed.
The Applicant pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $7,467.00.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLG 2457 of 2018

EGA18

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND…

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 EGA18 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: [2020] FCCA 2404
Decision Date: 28 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, EGA18, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) concerning their application for a Safe Haven Enterprise visa. The Minister for Immigration was the respondent. The core of the dispute revolved around the IAA's assessment of the applicant's claims and the subsequent refusal of the visa.

The primary legal issue before the Federal Court was whether the IAA had erred in law in its assessment of the applicant's claims for protection. Specifically, the court was asked to consider whether the IAA had failed to adequately consider relevant information or had applied an incorrect legal standard in determining that there were no matters of principle to be considered in the applicant's case.

Judge Riethmuller found that the IAA had correctly applied the relevant legal principles and had not made any errors of law in its decision-making process. The court was satisfied that the IAA had properly considered the material before it and had reached a conclusion that was open to it on the evidence. Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed.

Orders