DSN16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2021] FCA 202

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DSN16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2021] FCA 202 Appeal from: DSN16 v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2019] FCCA 1982

File number: NSD 1341 of 2019

Judge: KERR J

Date of judgment: 12 March 2021

Catchwords: MIGRATION – appeal from Federal Circuit Court of Australia – whether Immigration Assessment Authority erred in failing to evaluate claim that Appellant faced risk if returned to Sri Lanka simply due to his Tamil ethnicity, as distinct from other specific and contextualised claims – that claim clearly advanced – inference drawn that claim overlooked, having regard to Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf [2001] HCA 30; 206 CLR 323 – error not material given finding elsewhere in Authority's reasons that merely being a Tamil did not itself give rise to a real chance of harm on return to Sri Lanka – no jurisdictional error – appeal dismissed MIGRATION – appeal from Federal Circuit Court of Australia – whether Immigration Assessment Authority failed to give proper, realistic and genuine consideration to letter provided by the Appellant – Authority gave letter no weight – findings upon which conclusion based reasonably open – appeal dismissed MIGRATION – where Appellant seeks to rely on a ground not advanced before the Federal Circuit Court of Australia – whether the Immigration Assessment Authority lacked jurisdiction because the Appellant is not a fast track applicant – where proposed ground sought in same terms in BXT17 v Minister for Home Affairs [2021] FCAFC 9 – leave granted to rely on proposed ground – appeal dismissed PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where Appellant administratively allocated pseudonym in Federal Circuit Court of Australia in accordance with s 91X of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – where pseudonym consisted of letters and numbers – application to vary pseudonym to a "human pseudonym" – no reason in principle precluding Court from allocating a "human pseudonym" if doing so in the interests of justice – application advanced only at the hearing of the appeal – granting application would potentially cause confusion by severing link between judgment on appeal and judgment below – lack of utility in granting application at late stage of appeal – application refused