Federal Court of Australia

CHP17 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 284

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The name of the first respondent be changed to Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.

2.    The appeal be dismissed.

3.    The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs as agreed or assessed.

4.    The first respondent serve these orders and reasons on the appellant within 7 days.

5.    Service of these orders and reasons may be effected by email or in person.

6.    The first respondent file an affidavit of service within 7 days of service of these orders on the appellant.

7.    The appellant may apply to set aside orders 2 and 3 if that application is made within 7 days of service of these orders on him.

8.    The first respondent has liberty to apply in relation to orders 4, 5 and 6 hereof.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THAWLEY J:

1    This proceeding is an appeal from orders made by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, dismissing the appellant’s application for judicial review of a decision of the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) – see: CHP17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCCA 1395.

2    At the request of the appellant, the appeal was listed for hearing in the Brisbane registry of the Court. The appellant did not appear at the hearing. A number of unsuccessful attempts were made to contact him.

3    At the hearing of the appeal, the Court raised with the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs the question whether the primary judge erred in failing to recognise jurisdictional error on the part of the IAA in the way the appellant had contended in his notice of appeal, which also reflected the case put to the primary judge.

4    It is sufficient for present purposes to observe that, in response, a number of cogent arguments were concisely put by counsel for the Minister as to why the appeal should be dismissed irrespective of whether the primary judge erred. These included that, on the preferable reading of its reasons, the IAA did not misunderstand its discretion under s 473DC of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) as contended by the appellant and that, even it did, the error was not material.

5    As things presently stand, it would seem that the appellant does not wish to pursue his appeal. In the circumstances, I will make the orders to which these reasons relate.

Associate:     

Dated:    1 April 2025