ADO17 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2024] FedCFamC2G 1058

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 2)

ADO17 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FedCFamC2G 1058

File number(s):

SYG 161 of 2019

Judgment of:

JUDGE KAUR-BAINS

Date of judgment:

18 October 2024

Catchwords:

 MIGRATION- Administrative law – judicial review- allegation of bias – denial of procedural fairness – whether denied a real and meaningful opportunity to participate in hearing due to applicant’s nervousness – application dismissed

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 36, 425, 476, 477    

Cases cited:

Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship vSZNVW (2010) 183 FCR 575; [2010] FCAFC 41; Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZNCR [2011] FCA 369

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng (2001) 205 CLR 507

NADK v Minister of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 184

SZBCS v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1457

Division:

Division 2 General Federal Law

Number of paragraphs:

63

Date of hearing:

8 October 2024

Place:

Sydney

Counsel for the Applicant:

The Applicant appeared in person

Solicitor for the Respondent:

Mr L Dennis of Mills Oakley

Solicitor for the Respondent:

Submitting Appearance save as to costs

ORDERS

SYG 161 of 2019

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

ADO17

Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE KAUR-BAINS
DATE OF ORDER:	18 OCTOBER 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The name of the First Respondent is amended to Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.

2.The application is dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Judge Kaur-Bains

1. By an application filed on 23 January 2019, the applicant applied to this Court seeking judicial review of a decision by the second respondent (Tribunal) dated 10 January 2019.  The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate not to grant the applicant a Protection (Class XA) (subclass 866) visa (visa).  

2. The application did not seek a writ of mandamus directed to the Tribunal to determine the applicant’s application according to law. Given that the applicant was a litigant in person, I raised with the Minister’s representative if he had any objection to the application being amended to include such relief. The Minister did not object to such a course, and I ordered that the application be taken to be amended to seek such relief. Accordingly, the Court has jurisdiction to determine this matter pursuant to s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act). The amended application for review has been brought within the time set out in s 477 of the Act.

   BACKGROUND

3. The applicant is a male citizen of the People’s Republic of China, who first arrived in Australia on 18 June 2013 as the holder of a Visitor (Class FA) (subclass 600) visa (CB 72).  That visa ceased on 3 September 2013. Thereafter, the applicant remained in Australia unlawfully until he applied for a protection visa on 7 January 2014 (CB1).

   Protection Visa Claims

4. In an accompanying statement to the protection visa application dated 5 January 2014 (CB 27-30), the applicant claimed he opposed China’s one-party political system and that he learned about the China Democratic Party (CDP) through internet research. He claimed he was granted membership to the CDP on 11 January 2013 and was determined to devote himself to the democratic cause of China. His key tasks were allegedly to invite more members to the party and to participate actively in “long-term secret gatherings” (CB 28).

5. The applicant claimed that, on 26 January 2013, he successfully recruited his friend Mr Lin to join the CDP using the Chinese instant messaging service “QQ”. Because of the applicant’s active participation in promoting the CDP’s ideas and policies he was promoted to a senior level on 28 January 2013 (CB 28).

6. He claimed that, in February 2013, he travelled to Thailand to join the “Lu Brothers”, whom he had befriended online, on their long-distance yachting trip because he was an ocean and navigation enthusiast. When the boat arrived in East Timor the applicant obtained a visitor visa for Australia and travelled with the crew to Darwin to have their boat repaired (CB 29).

7. The applicant claimed that, after arriving in Australia, he learned from his family in China that his friend, Mr Lin, was arrested and detained in May 2013 by the Public Security Bureau (PSB), for engaging in activities that would subvert the state (CB 30).

8. On 28 May 2013, the applicant claimed that his family received a summons issued by the PSB, which ordered the applicant to appear for investigation and interrogation. The applicant contacted the CDP headquarters who suggested he seek political asylum in Australia as many members had been arrested and sentenced. The applicant’s wife continued to reside in China with their children, and although he was concerned about his wife’s mental health, he “dare not” go back home as he will be arrested (CB 30).

   Delegate’s decision

9. On 16 July 2014, the applicant attended an interview before the delegate (the interview) (CB 74).  Following the interview, the applicant provided a further statement dated 16 December 2014 (CB 65-66), and documentary evidence of his CDP membership (CB 56-59, 61-64).

10. On 11 May 2015, the delegate refused to grant the applicant a protection visa (CB 71-92). This was based on the delegate’s adverse credibility findings that the applicant was not a committed member of the CDP, and did not face a real chance of harm in China on that basis.

11. On 2 June 2015, the applicant applied to the then Refugee Review Tribunal for merits review (CB 98). On 1 July 2015, the Refugee Review Tribunal was amalgamated with the Tribunal. On 20 December 2016, the applicant attended a hearing before the Tribunal (First Tribunal Hearing) (CB 118). On 22 December 2016, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision (CB 138).

    First Judicial Review of the First Tribunal Decision

12. On 26 May 2017, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (as it was then called) made orders by consent remitting the matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration on the basis that the Tribunal had failed to consider whether the applicant’s political activities in Australia could give rise to a real risk of significant harm (CB 148-149).

    Second Tribunal Hearing

13. On 1 November 2018, the Tribunal (differently constituted) invited the applicant to attend a hearing (Second Tribunal Hearing) (CB 163).

14. On 5 December 2018, the applicant attended a hearing before the Tribunal and provided photograph evidence (CB 173, Supplementary CB 1-8).

15. On 6 December 2018, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant, pursuant to section 424A of the Act, and invited him to comment on detailed information which the Tribunal considered would, subject to the applicant’s comments, be the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review (First Invitation to Comment) (CB 177).

16. On 18 December 2018, the applicant responded by way of email to the Tribunal's invitation to comment (CB 181) and attached a written statement (CB 182-183) and a statutory declaration from his landlord (CB 184).

17. On 21 December 2018, the Tribunal again wrote to the applicant, pursuant to section 424A of the Act, inviting him to comment on the following information (Second Invitation to Comment) (CB 186):

    The Tribunal (previously constituted) has recorded that at hearing on 20 December 2016 you were unable to provide basic information including details of the China Democratic Party’s founders (CDP), when the party was established or when the government’s crackdown on the CDP occurred.

18. On 21 December 2018, the applicant responded by email to the Tribunal's second invitation to comment and attached a further written statement (CB 188- 189).  Additionally, the applicant provided translated copies of various documentary evidence (CB 34-38).

    TRIBUNAL’S SECOND DECISION

19. The Tribunal summarised both the information put to the applicant and his responses in the Protection Visa interview, as well as information put to him and his responses at the Tribunal hearing, and also the applicant’s responses to invitations for further comment following the Tribunal hearing ([10] to [19] of the reasons). At [19] of the reasons the Tribunal noted that there were a number of photos provided by the applicant. The photos consisted of a group in front of various posters and two selfies of the applicant standing in front of blurred people in the background.

20. Specifically, it was put to the applicant at the hearing that:

    (a)He had been unable to provide basic information about the CDP at the first hearing and that some of the information provided at the second hearing was incorrect ([10] and [14] of the reasons).

    (b)He had previously told the Department of Immigration that he had not participated in politics as his main focus was work ([11] of the reasons).

    (c)While the photos provided at the hearing may show him at a protest in Australia, they did not show him in the protest. The Tribunal added that it may also find that if the applicant was in the protest that he may have done so for the purposes of the protection visa application ([13] of the reasons).

21. At [20] and [21] of the reasons, the Tribunal considered the country information about the CDP.

22. The Tribunal identified at [28] of the reasons the issue for determination as being:

    … whether the applicant has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for one or more of the five reasons set out in the Refugee Convention in China and, if not, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his being removed from Australia to China, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm.

23. At [31] of its reasons, the Tribunal considered the applicant’s difficulty in answering certain questions about the CDP. The Tribunal noted that although the applicant was able to answer some basic questions about the party at the Second Hearing, he was unable to answer such questions at the First Hearing. The Tribunal expressly considered whether this was due to the applicant being nervous. However, after also finding that the applicant was unable to demonstrate an understanding of CDP’s principles and core beliefs, the Tribunal expressed the opinion that the applicant had learned some basic facts about the CDP at some point between the First and Second Hearings but “failed to demonstrate any understanding or interest” in how the CDP’s democratic ideals worked in practice.

24. The Tribunal made a finding at [33] of the reasons that the applicant was not credible, due to his lack of knowledge of the CDP at the First Hearing, that was inconsistent with his claims that he was a member of the CDP and promoted the CDP beliefs. While the Tribunal acknowledged that the applicant was able to answer basic questions at the Second Hearing, it formed the impression that the applicant was only able to give repetitive and basic information without any meaningful detail based on his own personal experiences. The Tribunal also considered the further documentation provided by the applicant in support of his claims that he was a member of the CDP. The Tribunal ultimately did not accept, however, that the submitted documents were evidence of his CDP membership or involvement, due to its finding of the applicant’s “overall lack of credibility.”

25. The Tribunal made a further finding at [35] of the reasons that the applicant’s delay in applying for a protection visa was not consistent with his alleged fear of persecution. The Tribunal again expressly considered whether the applicant’s claimed nervousness may be an explanation for apparent inconsistencies in his answers, but ultimately formed the view that the inconsistencies were an example of “how the applicant will say anything if he believes it will give him an advantage in the protection visa application.”

26. In view of its multiple concerns, the Tribunal stated at [36] of the reasons:

    (a)It was not satisfied that the applicant had been truthful about his experiences in China or reasons for fearing harm.

    (b)It was not satisfied that the applicant had joined the CDP via the internet in China, had recruited his friend to the CDP, that his friend was arrested by Chinese authorities or that those authorities had subsequently sought out the applicant.

    (c)It had considered documentary evidence of the applicant in support of his claims that he was sought out by Chinese authorities in the form of a summons notice, but due to the Tribunal’s adverse credit findings against the applicant, it did not accept that the document was genuine.

27. Further, the Tribunal did not accept that the applicant had engaged in the claimed political activities in Australia. The Tribunal considered the photographs submitted by the applicant as possible evidence of his engagement in political activities, but it determined that those photographs did not show him as a protest participant and the Tribunal did not accept that he had demonstrated participation in such protests. The Tribunal ultimately did not accept that the applicant had participated in any democratic organisation in China or Australia and was not satisfied that he had been involved in any political activities since his arrival in Australia ([37] and [38] of the reasons).

28. For the reasons above, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. Therefore, the Tribunal found the applicant did not satisfy the criterion set out in s 36(2)(a) of the Act ([39] of the reasons).

29. The Tribunal then considered whether the applicant met the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa) of the Act. As the Tribunal was not satisfied the applicant had engaged in any democratic organisation in China or Australia, or that he had been involved in any political activities since his arrival in Australia, the Tribunal was not satisfied that he would face significant harm as defined in s 36(2A) of the Act. For those reasons, the Tribunal was not satisfied that there were substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to China, there was a real risk that the applicant would suffer significant harm. Therefore, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa) of the Act ([40] to [43] of the reasons).

    RELEVANT LAW

30. The Act provided at the relevant time:

    36       Protection visas—criteria provided for by this Act

    …

    (2)       A criterion for a protection visa is that the Applicant for the visa is:

    (a) a non‑citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol; or

    (aa) a non‑citizen in Australia (other than a non‑citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non‑citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or

    (b) a non‑citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a  non‑citizen who:

    (i)        is mentioned in paragraph (a); and

    (ii)       holds a protection visa; or

    (c) a non‑citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non‑citizen who:

    (i)        is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and

    (ii)       holds a protection visa.

    (2A)    A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:

    (a)      the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or

    (b)      the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or

    (c)      the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or

    (d) the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or

    (e) the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment

    …

    GROUNDS IN THE APPLICATION

31. The applicant’s grounds for judicial review are set out in his affidavit filed on 23 January 2019, which was made in support of his application for judicial review filed on the same day. The grounds for review are as follows:

    1. AAT case officers have a stereotype for me. They continue saying I am not credible since I did not display basic knowledge of the CDP at the Tribunal hearing on 20 December 2016. But on the recent hearing, I am able to answer basic questions about the CDP such as when that party was established and when the Chinese crackdown against the CDP occurred. I said many time I was very nervous and panic at the first AAT hearing on 20 December 2016. AAT, however, refused to believe me.

    2. AAT case officers are not responsible. I stated that I mainly completed the tasks given to me by my party. I took political activities in Australia will have have a bad impact on me if I was send back to China.

    3. I provide photos showing I am a protest participant, but AAT case officers did not believe that.

    4. AAT case officers does not accept the fact that I was afraid to be too openly involved in political or group activities, leading to a great trouble for my personal safety.

    (as per the original)

    PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT

32. The applicant appeared at the hearing unrepresented, assisted by a Mandarin interpreter. Mindful of the Court’s duties to a litigant in person, I explained to the applicant the role of the Court in undertaking judicial review. I ensured the applicant was in possession of all relevant documents, namely the Court Book, Supplementary Court Book, Application, supporting Affidavit of the applicant filed on 23 January 2019 and the Minister’s Written Submissions.

33. At the hearing, the applicant tendered a document, without objection, headed “Testimony Statement,” such document was subsequently marked as Exhibit A2, which stated as follows:

    I, [name] of [address] have been a member of the Federation for a Democratic China (FDC) and a member of Chinese Alliance for Democracy since 1989. I am a former Vice-Chairman of FDC and a current member of the Supervisory Committee of FDC.

    I hereby certify that [applicant], also known as [name], started to contact FDC through [email] since April 2016, and joined FDC on 28 June 2016.

    (identifying information omitted)

34. The applicant told me that a document, supposedly accessible online, evidencing the number of Chinese citizens who were arrested, was wrongfully excluded from the Court Book and the Supplementary Court Book. The applicant submitted that document evidenced the number of Chinese citizens who were arrested, was before the First Tribunal, but not before the Second Tribunal (differently constituted). I requested a copy of this document from the applicant, but he told me he was unable to source it as it was provided many years ago.

    CONSIDERATION

    Ground 1

35. Ground 1 alleges, in essence, that the Tribunal stereotyped the applicant. Further, the Tribunal should not have made adverse credit findings against the applicant based on the discrepancy between his ability to answer basic questions about the CDP at the Second Tribunal Hearing and his inability to answer similar basic questions at the First Tribunal Hearing, as this discrepancy was explained by the fact that he was nervous.

1. The applicant said that the Second Tribunal Hearing did not last long and that he provided most of his explanations in relation to his inability to answer basic questions about the CDP in his response to the Second Invitation to Comment. The applicant also said that he told the Tribunal at the Second Tribunal Hearing that his incorrect answers at the First Tribunal Hearing were due to nerves and those incorrect answers could not prove that he was not a member of the CDP, as he had documentary evidence proving he was a member.

2. The Minister contended that Ground 1, invites the Court to engage in impermissible merits review. It was submitted that the Tribunal expressly acknowledged, at [15] and [31] of the reasons, the applicant’s claims that he was nervous and those nerves explained his inability to provide the correct answers to the basic questions about the CDP at the First Tribunal Hearing. The Minister said it was open to the Tribunal to consider matters which occurred at the First Tribunal Hearing and that it wrote to the applicant, out of an abundance of caution, putting its concerns to him and inviting further comment. It was submitted this is reflective of a legitimate exploration by the Tribunal of the applicant’s knowledge of the CDP. As such, the Minister contended the Tribunal’s conclusion as to the applicant’s credibility was plainly open to it on the evidence.

3. The Minister further submitted that if one was to read into Ground 1, any allegation of a denial of procedural fairness or bias on the part of the Tribunal, the applicant has put forward no evidence to support such an assertion. It was the Minister’s submission that there was no evidence that the applicant was denied a real and meaningful opportunity to participate in the hearing due to his nervousness and that the material before the Court demonstrates the applicant had been afforded procedural fairness in accordance with the Act.

4. I accept the Minister’s submission that read generously the applicant’s complaint in Ground 1, that the Tribunal “stereotyped” him and that he was “nervous” and “panicked” at the First Tribunal hearing, could be interpretated as allegations of bias and or a breach of section 425 of the Act.

   Bias

5. Actual bias requires prejudgment in a manner so committed to a conclusion that it is “incapable of alteration”, regardless of arguments or evidence: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng (2001) 205 CLR 507 (Jia Legeng) at [72] per Gleeson CJ and Gummow J. Apprehended bias is similarly difficult to establish. It requires that a “fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend” that a decision maker “might not bring an impartial mind” to determination of the matter: Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337 at [33] per Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ. Serious allegations of this nature must be distinctly made and clearly proved: Jia Legeng at [69].

6. There is no evidence before me to substantiate the applicant’s complaint of actual or apprehended bias. As said the suggestion of bias is a serious issue, which when raised should be supported by evidence as establishing a legal basis for the allegation.  On my reading of the reasons there is no evidence to support the serious allegation made by the applicant.  The reasons disclose the Tribunal was performing its inquisitorial role and dealing with the relevant issues.

   Section 425 of the Act

7. I accept the Minister’s submission that where an applicant is not feeling well, or as in the current matter, is nervous or panicked, the Tribunal has a discretion to defer the hearing, but is not obliged to do so: SZBCS v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1457 at [32] per Bennett J; NADK v Minister of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 184 per Tamberlin, Sackville & Hely JJ. An applicant who has a mental impairment which does not render him or her “entirely unfit” to attend a Tribunal hearing and answer questions cannot be held to have been denied a “real and meaningful” opportunity to participate in the hearing. It must be demonstrated that the applicant was unfit (in the sense of being unable) to give evidence, to present arguments and to answer questions in the course of the hearing: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship vSZNVW (2010) 183 FCR 575; [2010] FCAFC 41; Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZNCR [2011] FCA 369 at [30]-[33] per Tracey J).

8. The complaint that the applicant was nervous appears to be in relation to the First Hearing. However, I have no jurisdiction to review the First Tribunal decision, which was quashed in any case and the matter remitted to the Second Tribunal.

9. To the extent the applicant is seeking a merits review of the Second Tribunal decision and is complaining that the Second Tribunal ought to have accepted that the applicant was nervous, at the First Hearing and accepted that was the reason he could not answer questions about the CDP, as I told the applicant at the hearing, I do not have power to conduct a merits review. Further, it does not appear that the applicant’s nervousness meant he could not participate meaningfully in the First Hearing.

10. Ground 1 does not disclose jurisdictional error.

    Ground 2

11. In Ground 2, the applicant alleges that:

    AAT case officers are not responsible. I stated that I mainly completed the tasks given to me by my party. I took political activities in Australia will have have a bad impact on me if I was send back to China.

12. At the hearing, the applicant submitted that as there were photos taken of him at a demonstration before the Chinese embassy, the Chinese government would have information of his political activities and that this would cause him trouble, if he were to return to China. He also submitted that the document referred to in [36] of this judgment was evidence to prove that he would have problems if he returned to China.

13. The Minister submitted that Ground 2 simply invites the Court to engage in impermissible merits review. The Minister submitted in his written submissions that at [37] to [38] of the Tribunal’s reasons, it expressly considered but ultimately rejected, the applicant’s claims that he had participated in political activities in Australia or would be imputed with any political opinion.

14. The Minister also submitted that there was no evidence that the document referred to by the applicant in relation to this ground, if such a document exists, was provided to either the First or Second Tribunal. The Minister took me to [3] and [37] of the Second Tribunal’s reasons and [9] of the First Tribunal’s reasons, which set out all the documents before it at the respective hearings, noting that the document in question was not listed.

15. I agree with the Minister’s submissions. The Tribunal considered the applicant’s claims to fear harm due to his political activities in Australia and rejected the claims on the basis that the Tribunal did not accept his claims. The applicant does not say that the document referred to at [36] was before the Second Tribunal.

16. No jurisdictional error is disclosed by Ground 2.

    Ground 3

17. Ground 3 alleges that the applicant provided photographs showing that he was a protest participant, but that the Tribunal did not believe him.

18. At the hearing, the applicant submitted the Tribunal member complained about the quality of the photographs provided. The applicant disputed that assessment of the photographs and submitted that he is recognisable in the photographs. The applicant took me to the photograph in question at page 8 of the Supplementary Court Book.

19. The Minister submitted that Ground 3 is a further invitation for the Court to engage in impermissible merits review.

20. I note that the Tribunal expressly considered the photographs in question at [37] of the reasons and said:

    In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal has considered the photos lodged at hearing that purport to show the applicant at the alleged protests outside the Chinese consulate, however the applicant's 'selfies' in front of a blurred background do not show him as a protest participant and given his comments at Departmental interview, the Tribunal does not accept that he has in fact participated in these protests or that he will be imputed with any political opinion. When this was put to him at hearing, the applicant stated that he had joined yet another democratic organisation in 2016 however the Tribunal's overall view of the applicant's involvement in democratic movements is that the applicant has learnt basic information about democracy, does not have a good knowledge about the CDP or democracy and has struggled to supplement basic information with meaningful detail based on his own personal experiences because he has had none. Accordingly, the Tribunal does not accept that he has participated in any democratic organisation while in Australia.

21. It was a matter for the Tribunal to determine credibility findings. This Court does not have power to conduct a merits review.

22. Ground 3 fails to disclose a jurisdictional error.

    Ground 4

23. In Ground 4, the applicant alleges that:

    AAT case officers does not accept the fact that I was afraid to be too openly involved in political or group activities, leading to a great trouble for my personal safety.

24. At the hearing, the applicant clarified that what he meant by that ground is that he did not say he was afraid of being harmed by participating in political activities. The applicant actually participated in a number of political activities at both Sydney University and University of Technology Sydney.

25. The Minister submitted that in relation to this reformulated ground, the Tribunal’s reasons at [38] dispose of the applicant’s claims in relation to his activities in Australia, where the Tribunal noted that it was not satisfied the applicant had engaged in any democratic organisation in China or Australia.

26. I accept the Minister submissions and find that Ground 4 does not disclose any jurisdictional error.

    CONCLUSION

27. The application must be dismissed, as no jurisdictional error is disclosed.

28. I will hear the parties as to costs.

I certify that the preceding sixty-three (63) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Kaur-Bains.

Associate:

Dated:       18 October 2024