BYM16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 326

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BYM16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 326 Appeal from: BYM16 v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2017] FCCA 2445

File number(s): NSD 1916 of 2017

Judge: BROMWICH J

Date of judgment: 1 March 2018

Cases cited: WZAVW v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 760 WZATH v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 969

Date of hearing: 1 March 2018

Registry: New South Wales

Division: General

National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Category: No Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 16

Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant appeared in person with the assistance of an interpreter

Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr C Lenehan

Solicitor for the First Respondent: Clayton Utz

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

ORDERS NSD 1916 of 2017

BETWEEN: BYM16 Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION First Respondent IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY

Second Respondent

JUDGE: BROMWICH J DATE OF ORDER: 1 MARCH 2018

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the first respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal 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

BROMWICH J: 1 This is an appeal from orders made by a judge of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. His Honour dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the Immigration Assessment Authority which affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, to refuse the grant of a protection visa to the appellant. 2 The appellant sought to rely upon an amended notice of appeal. Leave was refused because the ground sought to be relied upon was not raised in the Court below. The application was not supported by any written submissions to indicate why that should not stand as an insurmountable barrier to leave being granted. Nor was there any submission as to the substance or merits of the proposed appeal ground, and none was apparent. The appellant did not make any substantive oral submission as to why leave should be granted.