{ tooltip = 'Copied'; setTimeout(() => tooltip = 'Copy Link', 2000); })" :data-tip="tooltip" class="tooltip tooltip-primary tooltip-bottom" class="cursor-pointer" role="button">
AUS17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection
Download as PDF
Download as Word
Highlights
My Notes
Collections
Create a New Collection
Overview
Full Text
{ tooltip = 'Copied'; setTimeout(() => tooltip = 'Copy Link', 2000); })" :data-tip="tooltip" class="tooltip tooltip-primary tooltip-bottom" class="cursor-pointer" role="button">
Details
Case
Agency Issuance Number
Published Date
AUS17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection
[2020] HCA 37
Tags
No tags available
Case
AUS17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection
[2020] HCA 37
•
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIAKIEFEL CJ,GAGELER, KEANE, GORDON AND EDELMAN JJAUS17 APPELLANTANDMINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION & ANOR RESPONDENTSAUS17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[2020] HCA 37Date of Hearing: 4 September 2020Date of Judgment: 14 October 2020S71/2020ORDER1.Appeal allowed. 2. Set aside orders 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Federal Court of Australia made on 16 October 2019 and, in their place, order that the appeal to that Court be dismissed with costs. 3.The first respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal to this Court. On appeal from the Federal Court of AustraliaRepresentationS B Lloyd SC and J B King for the appellant (instructed by Varess)G R Kennett SC with B D Kaplan for the first respondent (instructed by Sparke Helmore Lawyers)Submitting appearance for the second respondentNotice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.CATCHWORDSAUS17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection Immigration – Refugees – Application for protection visa – Immigration Assessment Authority ("Authority") – Review by Authority under Pt 7AA of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Where delegate of Minister for Immigration and Border Protection refused to grant appellant protection visa – Where decision referred to Authority for review – Where appellant's representative supplied Authority with further materials including letter of support from third party which post‑dated delegate's decision – Where Authority considered the letter was "new information" but concluded it was not able to be considered under s 473DD – Where Authority...
Continue reading the full case
Tags
No tags available
Case
AUS17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection
[2020] HCA 37
•
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIAKIEFEL CJ,GAGELER, KEANE, GORDON AND EDELMAN JJAUS17 APPELLANTANDMINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION & ANOR RESPONDENTSAUS17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[2020] HCA 37Date of Hearing: 4 September 2020Date of Judgment: 14 October 2020S71/2020ORDER1.Appeal allowed. 2. Set aside orders 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Federal Court of Australia made on 16 October 2019 and, in their place, order that the appeal to that Court be dismissed with costs. 3.The first respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal to this Court. On appeal from the Federal Court of AustraliaRepresentationS B Lloyd SC and J B King for the appellant (instructed by Varess)G R Kennett SC with B D Kaplan for the first respondent (instructed by Sparke Helmore Lawyers)Submitting appearance for the second respondentNotice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.CATCHWORDSAUS17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection Immigration – Refugees – Application for protection visa – Immigration Assessment Authority ("Authority") – Review by Authority under Pt 7AA of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Where delegate of Minister for Immigration and Border Protection refused to grant appellant protection visa – Where decision referred to Authority for review – Where appellant's representative supplied Authority with further materials including letter of support from third party which post‑dated delegate's decision – Where Authority considered the letter was "new information" but concluded it was not able to be considered under s 473DD – Where Authority...
showFlash = false, 6000)"
>