DFL16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2021] FCA 936

Federal Court of Australia

DFL16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2021] FCA 936 Appeal from: DFL16 v Minister for Immigration [2019] FCCA 3480

File number: NSD 2098 of 2019

Judgment of: WIGNEY J

Date of judgment: 11 August 2021

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – appeal – where appellant sought to file an amended notice of appeal – whether Court should grant leave for the appellant to file an amended notice of appeal – where new grounds of appeal were not before the primary judge – where no prejudice to the respondent if leave was granted – leave to file amended notice of appeal granted MIGRATION – appeal from the Federal Circuit Court of Australia – where the Circuit Court dismissed a judicial review application of a decision by the Immigration Assessment Authority affirming a decision of the delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to refuse appellant's application for a protection visa – where appellant was an unauthorised maritime arrival – where delegate was not satisfied that appellant met criteria for a protection visa under ss 36(2)(a) and (aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – where delegate's decision to refuse appellant a protection visa was referred to the Authority as a "fast track reviewable decision" pursuant to pt 7AA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – where the Authority conducted its review of the delegate's decision "on the papers" in accordance with s 473DB of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – where adverse credibility findings were made in respect of the appellant's judicial review application – whether the Authority acted unreasonably in failing to exercise its discretion to invite appellant to provide new information under s 473DC(3) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – whether there were exceptional circumstances to justify the Authority to consider any new information pursuant to s 473DD of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – where no exceptional circumstances found to justify the Authority to consider any new information – whether decision of Authority was legally unreasonable and involved jurisdictional error – where the Authority did not fail to consider exercising its discretion to get new information – whether findings made by the Authority were wrong and not supported by material before it, or otherwise irrational or illogical – where Authority's decision to not consider new information was not unreasonable to constitute jurisdictional error – appeal dismissed