Recent Cases

DGPZ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 107 (27 June 2022) (Besanko, Wheelahan and Rofe JJ)


Catchwords:


PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — application for extension of time within which to file Notice of appeal from orders made by Federal Court of Australia — where applicant filed application approximately three months out of time — where applicant in immigration detention and received limited legal assistance — where applicant deposed to belief he had appealed at or shortly after expiration of time limit — whether appropriate to grant extension of time — application granted

MIGRATION — appeal from orders made by Federal Court of Australia — where applicant a citizen of Turkey with extensive criminal record — where delegate of Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Minister) cancelled applicant’s visa under s 501(3A) of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act) — where applicant made representations to Minister about revocation of original decision pursuant to s 501CA(4)(a) of Act — where delegate of Minister made decision under s 501CA(4) of Act not to revoke original decision — where, on remitter from Federal Court of Australia, Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) affirmed non-revocation decision — where applicant filed document for purposes of hearing before Tribunal (ASFICs) containing submissions as to why “another reason” original decision should be revoked pursuant to s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of Act and addressing considerations identified in direction made by Minister pursuant to s 499 of Act (Direction 79) — where ASFICs addressed other consideration of international non-refoulement obligations contained in Direction 79, including ill-treatment of people with mental illness in Turkey and risk of harm to applicant should return to Turkey cause him to deteriorate mentally — where, in considering other consideration of extent of impediments if removed contained in Direction 79, Tribunal found prospect of applicant experiencing relapse in mental health if returned to Turkey — where, in considering primary consideration of protection of Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct contained in Direction 79, Tribunal found that “convincing likelihood” applicant will relapse into drug abuse and commit further offences in Australia — where, in considering other consideration of extent of impediments if removed, submission that given applicant’s long-term drug use, high chance of him being imprisoned in Turkey found by Tribunal to be “speculative” — where applicant’s application to Federal Court of Australia for judicial review of Tribunal’s decision dismissed by primary judge — whether primary judge erred in not finding that Tribunal failed to give meaningful consideration to applicant’s claim that if returned to Turkey, he faced prospect of mistreatment — where applicant seeks to rely on second ground of judicial review not raised before primary judge, that Tribunal reasoned irrationally, illogically or unreasonably, in error, by making plainly or starkly inconsistent findings that “convincing likelihood” of drug abuse and offending in Australia and that high chance of imprisonment in Turkey contended by applicant “speculative” — whether appropriate to grant leave to applicant to rely on Ground 2 — leave granted to rely on Ground 2 — whether Tribunal erred in manner contended by applicant — whether any error in reasoning material to Tribunal’s decision — appeal dismissed