BJA17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1355

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BJA17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1355 Appeal from: BJA17 v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2017] FCCA 3074

File number: NSD 2216 of 2017

Judge: GLEESON J

Date of judgment: 6 September 2018

Catchwords: MIGRATION – appeal from Federal Circuit Court of Australia decision to dismiss application for review of decision of Immigration Assessment Authority to deny appellant visa – no appellable error identified – appeal dismissed

Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 5J(6), 473DE

Cases cited: BJA17 v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2017] FCCA 3074

Date of hearing: 1 June 2018

Registry: New South Wales

Division: General Division

National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 42

Counsel for the Appellant: The appellant appeared in person

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr G Johnson

Solicitor for the Respondents: MinterEllison

ORDERS NSD 2216 of 2017

BETWEEN: BJA17 Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION First Respondent

IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY Second Respondent

JUDGE: GLEESON J DATE OF ORDER: 6 September 2018

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

GLEESON J: 1 This is an appeal from a decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia ("FCCA") made on 8 December 2017, which dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the second respondent ("IAA") dated 27 February 2017: BJA17 v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2017] FCCA 3074. The IAA had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent ("Minister") refusing to grant the appellant a Safe Haven Enterprise (subclass 790) visa ("SHEV"). 2 The notice of appeal repeats as grounds of appeal the matters raised as grounds of review in the FCCA. The four grounds are: (1) The decision of the IAA is irrational and or arbitrary and or illogical and or unreasonable. (2) The IAA took into account an irrelevant consideration. (3) The IAA failed to comply with s 473DE of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("Act"). (4) There is an apprehension of bias or actual bias (on the part of the IAA). 3 In effect, the notice of appeal contends that the FCCA judge erred by failing to accept the four grounds of review in the FCCA. 4 The appellant did not file written submissions in support of his appeal. At the hearing of the appeal, he made oral submissions with the assistance of a Persian interpreter, described below.