Legal Research
Cases
AZK18 v Minister for Immigration

AZK18 v Minister for Immigration

Link copied

Case Copied 27 September 2019 28 min read

Contents

On this page

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AZK18 & ORS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2019] FCCA 2503

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Review of Immigration Assessment Authority decision – refusal of protection visas – applicants claiming a fear of harm in Sri Lanka – applicants’ fears found not to be well-founded – whether the Authority failed to properly consider an integer of the applicants’ claims, or failed to engage in an active intellectual process, or made an irrational decision in respect of the child applicants, or erred in determining the receiving country for one of the child applicants or erred in considering the impact of detention considered – no jurisdictional error.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.36

Cases cited:

Applicant WAEE v Minister for Immigration (2003) 75 ALD 630
Buadromo v Minister for Immigration[2017] FCA 1592
Carrascalao v Minister for Immigration (2017) 252 FCR 352
Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration [2003] HCA 26

FER17 v Minister for Immigration[2019] FCAFC 106
Hossain v Minister for Immigration (2018) 359 ALR 1
Htun v Minister for Immigration [2001] FCA 1802

Re Minister for Immigration; Ex parte Miah (2001) 206 CLR 57
Swift v SAS Trustee Corporation[2010] NSWCA 182

First Applicant:

AZK18

Second Applicant:

AZL18

Third Applicant:

AZM18

Fourth Applicant:

AZN18

Fifth Applicant:

AZO18

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Second Respondent:

IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY

File Number:

SYG 550 of 2018

Judgment of:

Judge Driver

Hearing date:

5 September 2019

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

27 September 2019

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Mr S Tambimuttu of Hodges Legal

Counsel for the Respondents:

Ms K Hooper

Solicitors for the Respondents:

Minter Ellison

ORDERS

The application as amended on 16 August 2019 is dismissed.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 550 of 2018

AZK18

First Applicant

AZL18

Second Applicant

AZM18

Third Applicant

AZN18

Fourth Applicant

AZO18

Fifth Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction and background

The applicants seek judicial review of a decision of the Immigration Assessment Authority (Authority) made on 8 February 2018. The Authority affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister (delegate) not to grant the applicants protection visas.
The following statement of background facts is derived from the submissions of the parties.
The five applicants are a husband (first…

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 AZK18 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: [2019] FCCA 2503
Decision Date: 27 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, AZK18 and others, sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) to refuse their applications for protection visas. The applicants, who were citizens of Sri Lanka, claimed they feared harm if returned to their country of origin. The IAA had found that their fears were not well-founded. The matter came before Judge Driver in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the IAA had committed jurisdictional error. Specifically, the applicants alleged that the Authority failed to properly consider an integer of their claims, did not engage in an active intellectual process in its assessment, made an irrational decision concerning the child applicants, erred in determining the receiving country for one of the child applicants, or made an error in considering the impact of detention.

Judge Driver found no jurisdictional error on the part of the IAA. The court's reasoning focused on whether the IAA's decision-making process met the required legal standards. The Authority was found to have adequately considered the claims made by the applicants, including those relating to the child applicants, and to have engaged in an appropriate intellectual process in reaching its conclusions. The determination of the receiving country and the consideration of detention impacts were also found to be within the Authority's powers and not indicative of jurisdictional error.

Consequently, the applications for judicial review were dismissed.

Orders