Apj17 v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, Apj17, sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) which affirmed the delegate's refusal to grant her and her de facto partner a protection visa. The applicant and her partner, citizens of China, had lodged multiple visa applications, including protection visa applications, and sought to include their children in these applications. The RRT had affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that the applicants had not established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm if returned to China.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the RRT committed jurisdictional error by failing to consider the claims of the applicants' children, and whether the RRT erred by failing to provide evidence to support its findings regarding the applicant's claims. The applicant also contended that the RRT's findings lacked evidentiary support.

Emmett J found that the RRT had not committed jurisdictional error by failing to consider the children's claims, as their applications had been found invalid by the Department under regulation 2.08A of the Migration Regulations 1994 and section 48A of the Migration Act 1958. Regarding the assertion that the RRT failed to provide evidence for its findings, the court applied the established legal principles that the Tribunal is not obliged to accept all allegations uncritically and does not require rebutting evidence before holding an assertion not made out. The court noted that the Tribunal had set out the applicant's claims, the delegate's decision, and summarised exchanges with the applicant at the hearing, indicating that the Tribunal had considered the evidence and the applicant's responses.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.