BYN15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1049

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BYN15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1049 Appeal from: BYN15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCCA 395

File number: VID 273 of 2017

Judge: O'CALLAGHAN J

Date of judgment: 10 August 2017

Date of publication of reasons: 1 September 2017

Catchwords: MIGRATION – appeal from decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia – whether primary judge misapplied the definition of "refugee"

Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 36(2)(a), 422B(1), 426A

Date of hearing: 10 August 2017

Registry: Victoria

Division: General Division

National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 17

Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant appeared in person

Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr C Hibbard

Solicitor for the First Respondent: Clayton Utz

Counsel for the Second Respondent: The Second Respondent filed a submitting notice save as to costs

ORDERS VID 273 of 2017

BETWEEN: BYN15

Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE: O'CALLAGHAN J DATE OF ORDER: 10 AUGUST 2017

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the first respondent's costs, as agreed or assessed. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(revised from transcript)

O'CALLAGHAN J: 1 This is an appeal from a decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (the FCCA) made on 6 March 2017. The FCCA dismissed the appellant's application for judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal), made on 7 September 2015. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the first respondent, not to grant the appellant a Protection (Class XA) visa (the visa). 2 The notice of appeal to this Court was filed on 20 March 2017. The appellant was directed by the Registrar to file and serve a written outline of submissions no later than 10 days before the hearing date, namely 1 August 2017. No such submissions were filed. 3 When the matter was called on for hearing on 10 August 2017, I asked the appellant if he had any submissions that he wished to make in support of his case. He replied "Not really". The first respondent largely sought to rely on his written submissions. In the circumstances, I dismissed the appeal, and gave ex tempore reasons for doing so. These are those reasons.