Aex17 v Minister for Immigration - [2020] FCCA 3117

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AEX17 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2020] FCCA 3117

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Administrative Appeals Tribunal – Protection visa – whether the Tribunal fell into jurisdictional by failing to take into account all relevant circumstances when considering the applicant’s claimed conversion to Christianity – whether the applicant’s conversion to Christianity was for the sole purpose of strengthening their refugee claim – whether the Tribunal’s decision was inconsistent, illogical or un-reasonable – whether jurisdictional error is made out – no jurisdictional error arises – the application is dismissed.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss. 36, 91R.

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) r 7.01.

Cases cited:

Abebe v Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 197 CLR 510.

Applicant:

AEX17

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Second Respondent:

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Number:

SYG 114 of 2017

Judgment of:

Judge Humphreys

Hearing date:

10 November 2020

Date of Last Submission:

10 November 2020

Delivered at:

Parramatta

Delivered on:

19 November 2020

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Mr Hodges of Hodges Legal

Solicitors for the Respondents:

Mr Downie of Minter Ellison Lawyers

ORDERS

The name of the first respondent be changed to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs.
The application is dismissed.
The applicant to pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the amount of $5600.00.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 114 of 2017

AEX17

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

The applicant is a citizen of Iran. In July 2012, the applicant departed Iran legally on a passport issued in his own name. The applicant travelled via the United Arab Emirates to Indonesia. After the applicant arrived in Indonesia, he boarded a boat for Australia.
On 1 July 2013, the applicant applied for a protection (Class XA) visa. A delegate of the Minister for Immigration (“the delegate”) refused to grant the visa on 9 January 2015. The applicant sought merits review in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”). In a decision dated 20 December 2016, the Tribunal set aside the decision to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection (Class XA) visa and substituted a decision to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection (Class XD) visa.
The…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Aex17 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] FCCA 3117
Decision Date: 19 November 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application for judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) regarding a protection visa. The applicant, Aex17, sought to challenge the AAT's refusal to grant the visa. The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs was the respondent.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the AAT had committed a jurisdictional error. Specifically, the court was asked to determine if the Tribunal failed to consider all relevant circumstances when assessing the applicant's claimed conversion to Christianity, and whether this conversion was solely for the purpose of strengthening the refugee claim. The court also considered whether the Tribunal's decision was inconsistent, illogical, or unreasonable, which would indicate jurisdictional error.

Judge Humphreys found that no jurisdictional error had been made out. The reasoning focused on the AAT's assessment of the applicant's claimed conversion to Christianity. The court concluded that the Tribunal had adequately considered the relevant circumstances and had not acted inconsistently, illogically, or unreasonably in its determination.

Consequently, the application was dismissed. The court also ordered that the name of the first respondent be amended and that the applicant pay the first respondent's costs fixed at $5600.00.

Orders

Orders of the court

ORDERS

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

2. The application is dismissed.

3. The applicant to pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the amount of $5600.00.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.