FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| AEH16 & ANOR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2019] FCCA 34 |
| Catchwords: RELEVANT CONSIDERATION – Relevant consideration whether applicants were undocumented stateless persons as claimed – Applicants’ claim to having been born in Iraq uncontroverted – Tribunal made affirmative finding of applicants’ nationality as Iranian – finding of nationality to be determined by reference to domestic law of the country of putative nationality – Tribunal ought to have given consideration to relevant DFAT information – Tribunal made no assessment of whether applicants’ met criteria for grant of Iranian citizenship – failure to take into account mandatory or relevant consideration – failure to take material into consideration not an immaterial error – jurisdictional error established. IRRATIONAL AND ILLOGICAL REASONING – Tribunal concluded applicants were not credible witnesses – high threshold for establishing irrationality and unreasonableness – Tribunal made unreasonable finding along the way – conclusion as to applicants’ credibility might have been different had factors been considered on a reasonable and rational basis – irrational and illogical reasoning established. |
| Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.5, 5H, 36, 65, 414, 430, 474, 476, 499 Migration Regulations 1994, Sch.2, pt.866, reg.1401 |
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read AEH16 v Minister for Immigration and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2019] FCCA 34
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error by failing to consider relevant country information, specifically concerning the acquisition of Iranian citizenship by Faili Kurd refugees, and whether the Tribunal's conclusion that the applicants were not credible witnesses, and its subsequent finding of Iranian nationality, were irrational or unreasonable. The court was required to determine if the Tribunal's reasoning process was so flawed that it fell outside the bounds of what a reasonable decision-maker could conclude based on the evidence.
The court found that the Tribunal failed to adequately consider relevant information from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) regarding the likelihood of Faili Kurd refugees acquiring Iranian citizenship. The Tribunal's reasoning that the applicants were Iranian citizens, based on factors such as their failure to obtain specific documentation and general statistics, was found to be irrational and unreasonable, particularly in light of DFAT advice indicating it was highly unlikely for such individuals to be granted Iranian citizenship. The court applied the principles established in *Minister for Immigration v SZMDS*, emphasizing that a decision is irrational or illogical if there is no logical connection between the evidence and the inferences drawn, or if the conclusion reached was not open on the evidence. The Tribunal's adverse credibility findings were also scrutinised, with the court noting that such findings can involve jurisdictional error if they lack a logical or rational basis, especially when critical to the overall decision.
The Tribunal's decision was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh merits review, to be conducted according to law and with due consideration of all relevant material and legal principles.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Ground 3 reads:The Tribunal’s finding that the applicants were Iranian citizens was irrational, or alternatively, was so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have made it. Particularsa)The Tribunal’s reliance on the applicants’ failure to obtain green or white cards as a basis for finding that they were Iranian citizens was irrational; or, alternatively, unreasonable.b)The Tribunal’s reliance on reported statistics of the numbers of unregistered Faili Kurds in Iran as a basis for finding that they were Iranian citizens was irrational; or, alternatively, unreasonable. The seminal statement of principle respecting irrationality and illogicality in the administrative process of a decision-maker is found in Minister for Immigration v SZMDS.[49] The test is a stringent one and was stated by Crennan and Bell JJ as follows:[50]But, the test for illogicality or irrationality must be to ask whether logical or rational or reasonable minds might adopt different reasoning or might differ in any decision or finding to be made on evidence upon which the decision is based. If probative evidence can give rise to different processes of reasoning and if logical or rational or reasonable minds might differ in respect of the conclusions to be drawn from that evidence, a decision cannot be said by a reviewing court to be illogical or irrational or unreasonable, simply because one conclusion has been preferred to another possible conclusionLater their Honours stated:[51]Whilst there may be varieties of illogicality and irrationality, a decision will not be illogical or irrational if there is room for a logical or rational person to reach the same decision on the material before the decision maker. A decision might be said to be illogical or irrational if only one conclusion is open on the evidence, and the decision maker does not come to that conclusion, or if the decision to which the decision maker came was simply not open on the evidence or if there is no logical connection between the evidence and the inferences or conclusions drawn. [49] (2010) 240 CLR 611.[50] (2010) 240 CLR 611, [135].[51] (2010) 240 CLR 611, [135]. In relation to Ground 3, the relevant finding was located in the Reasons at [26] where the Tribunal set out in three dot points the reasons for its conclusion that the applicants were not credible witnesses (see below). The approach taken to adverse credibility findings was stated by the Full Court in DAO16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (in the context of legal unreasonableness), as follows:[52](1) While findings as to credit are generally matters for the administrative decision maker, this does not mean that such findings as to credit are beyond scrutiny on judicial review: CQG15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 146 (CQG15) at [37]-[38] (the Court). The question of whether a credibility finding is tainted by jurisdictional error is a case specific inquiry, and is not assessed by reference to fixed categories or formulae (ARG15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 174; (2016) 250 FCR 109 (ARG15) at [83](b)). In each case it is necessary to analyse in detail what the decision-maker has decided: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZRKT [2013] FCA 317; (2013) 212 FCR 99 (SZRKT) at [77] (Robertson J).(2) Without derogating from the case specific nature of the inquiry, adverse credibility findings may involve jurisdictional error on recognised grounds such as legal unreasonableness or reaching a finding without a logical, rational or probative basis (ARG15 at [83](d)). In this regard, Crennan and Bell JJ explained in Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS [2010] HCA 16; (2010) 240 CLR 611 (SZMDS) that:135 … A decision might be said to be illogical or irrational if only one conclusion is open on the evidence, and the decision maker does not come to that conclusion, or if the decision to which the decision maker came was simply not open on the evidence or if there is no logical connection between the evidence and the inferences or conclusions drawn. (Emphasis added)[52] (2018) 353 ALR 641.(3) By way of example, in SZRKT at [78], Robertson J considered that jurisdictional error may be established where a finding on credit on an objectively minor matter of fact constitutes the basis on which the decision-maker rejects the entirety of an applicant’s evidence and claims. Furthermore, as Flick J explained in SZVAP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 1089; (2015) 233 FCR 451 (SZVAP) at [22] (in a passage on which the appellant particularly relied), “[u]nwarranted assumptions by a Tribunal as to matters relevant to the formation of a view on the credibility of a corroborative witness may cause the Tribunal to disbelieve and disregard that evidence and may constitute a failure duly to consider the question raised by the material put before it: WAGO of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2002) 194 ALR 674 at [54].” Equally jurisdictional error may be established by “a process of reasoning which damns a man’s credibility by reference, materially, to a false factual premise concerning a critical document”: SZLGP v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 1470; (2009) 181 FCR 113 at [37].(4) Findings or reasoning along the way to reaching a conclusion by the decision-maker that are illogical or irrational may establish jurisdictional error (SZMDS at [132] (Crennan and Bell JJ)). In this regard, with respect to the significance of an illogical or irrational finding as to credit to the administrative decision necessary to establish jurisdictional error, Wigney J explained in Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZUXN [2016] FCA 516 (in a passage approved in CQG15 at [60]) that:56 An irrational or illogical finding, or irrational or illogical reasoning leading to a finding, by the Tribunal that the review applicant was not a credible or honest witness may in some circumstances lead to a finding of jurisdictional error. That would particularly be the case where the adverse credibility finding was critical to the Tribunal’s decision that it was not satisfied that the applicant met the criteria for the grant of a visa. Whilst it is frequently said that findings as to credit are entirely matters for the Tribunal, such findings do not shield the Tribunal’s decision-making processes from scrutiny…(citations omitted)(5) A high degree of caution must, however, be exercised before finding that adverse findings as to credit expose jurisdictional error in order to ensure that the Court does not embark impermissibly upon merits review: SZMDS at [96]; SZVAP at [14]-[15]. As such, to establish jurisdictional error based on illogical or irrational findings of fact or reasoning, “extreme” illogicality must be demonstrated “measured against the standard that it is not enough for the question of fact to be one on which reasonable minds may come to different conclusions” (SZRKT at [148]; see also SZMDS at [135] and CQG15 at [60]). Thus, “[e]ven emphatic disagreement with the Tribunal’s reasoning would not be sufficient to make out illogicality”: CQG15 at [61].