BML19 v Minister for Immigration and Anor
[2020] FCCA 2009
•23 July 2020
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| BML19 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2020] FCCA 2009 |
| Catchwords: MIGRATION – Application for review of decision of the Immigration Assessment Authority (the IAA) – whether the IAA failed to apply the correct test in relation to s.36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – whether the IAA denied the applicant procedural fairness – grounds not made out – no jurisdictional error revealed – application dismissed. |
| Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.36, 473DB, 473DD, 473DF, 476 |
| Cases cited: Plaintiff M174/2016 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] HCA 16; (2018) 264 CLR 217; (2018) 92 ALJR 481; (2018) 353 ALR 600 |
| Applicant: | BML19 |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS |
| Second Respondent: | IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY |
| File Number: | SYG 896 of 2019 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Nicholls |
| Hearing date: | 14 July 2020 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 14 July 2020 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 23 July 2020 |
REPRESENTATION
| Applicant: | In Person |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Mills Oakley Lawyers |
| Legal Representative for the Respondents: | Mr E. Taylor |
ORDERS
The name of the first respondent is amended to read “Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs”.
The application made on 10 April 2019 is dismissed.
The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs set in the amount of $4500.
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 896 of 2019
| BML19 |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS |
First Respondent
| IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an application made on 10 April 2019 pursuant to s.476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) seeking review of the decision of the Immigration Assessment Authority (“the IAA”) made on 28 March 2019, which affirmed the decision of the delegate of the Minister (“the delegate”) not to grant the applicant a protection visa (“the visa”).
The evidence before the Court is contained in a bundle of relevant documents, filed and tendered by the first respondent (“the Court Book” – “CB”, “RE1”).
Background
The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh (item 10 at CB 3 and item 17 at CB 42). He arrived in Australia as an “Unauthorised Maritime Arrival” on 14 March 2013 (item 46 at CB 49). He made an application for a Safe Haven Enterprise visa (“SHEV”) (“the visa”) on 13 April 2017 (CB 42 – CB 74, CB 99.3, and also see CB 81 – CB 93). He was assisted by a registered migration agent (CB 38 – CB 40, and CB 80). Attached to the application was the applicant’s statement dated 6 April 2017 summarising his claims to fear harm (CB 75 – CB 79).
The applicant made a number of claims to fear harm. He stated that he did voluntary work for the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (“BNP”) in his local area in 2007. His father also “worked” for the BNP ([10] at CB 76). He initially informed BNP supporters about upcoming meetings and distributed pamphlets and information materials to recruit people to the BNP, and later: “…moved up into the role of messenger” ([10] – [11] at CB 76).
In April 2012 he assisted in organising a rally to protest against the kidnapping and disappearance of a BNP MP on 17 April 2012 in the Sylhet District, and two protests were held ([12] – [14] at CB 76). After the second protest on 24 April 2012 he was attacked by “7 or 8 men”, one of whom he recognised as the brother of his girlfriend. The applicant was knocked unconscious and beaten, and awoke tied to a tree ([14] – [15] at CB 76). His father and brother were informed of this by a rickshaw driver who had witnessed this incident and found him in the jungle. He was then taken to hospital ([16] at CB 77). When the applicant came home from hospital he found out that his mother had “died from shock” ([17] at CB 77).
Later when the applicant was attending the local market, there was a protest between BNP and Awami League supporters, where he was attacked with a sword by members of the Awami League ([19] at CB 77). The same day he and “two other friends” left for Sharapar, on the border of Bangladesh and India. His father arranged for a smuggler to help them cross the border ([21] at CB 77).
The applicant’s father told him that Awami League members had come looking for him in October 2012. They threatened that his home would be burnt down, and the applicant’s sister would be “taken for ransom” if they did not hand over the applicant. The applicant’s father then died on 13 October 2012 ([23] at CB 77). The applicant returned to Bangladesh on 14 October 2012 and hid with his grandparents, as his brother told him that he was “being looked for” ([24] at CB 77).
The applicant told his girlfriend that he planned on visiting his father’s grave in November 2012 ([26] at CB 78). On the way there he was attacked and left unconscious by “several men” as he was riding a rickshaw. He believed that his girlfriend’s brother had overhead their conversation ([27] at CB 77).
The applicant was in hospital for “five days” and his girlfriend was “married off” while he was there. She committed suicide shortly after her marriage ([27] – [28] at CB 77). The applicant claimed that her brothers (who he alleged were members of the Awami League ([38] at CB 79)) blamed him for her death and searched for him ([29] at CB 78). The applicant’s brother assisted with arranging a smuggler for the applicant to leave for Australia after this incident ([30] – [31] at CB 78).
The applicant further claimed that while living in the Australian community he joined the “Australian BNP Chapter” and “sometimes” attended their events ([32] at CB 78), and that his brother informed him that the Awami League was still “looking for [him]” ([33] at CB 78).
The applicant was invited to attend an interview before the delegate on 4 December 2018 (CB 106 – CB 107). The applicant’s representative emailed post-interview submissions, dated 14 December 2018 (see CB 115 – CB 133) to the department on 17 December 2018 (CB 147 – CB 148), and two medical letters from a medical specialist from the Endocrine Clinic, and one from the applicant’s GP (CB 134 – CB 138).
The applicant was sent notification of refusal of his application for the visa by way of email on 20 February 2019 (CB 150 – CB 152). The decision record was attached to this correspondence (CB 153 – CB 168).
The delegate outlined the applicant’s additional claims made at the SHEV interview, including (at CB 155.5):
“● His elder brother has been missing since January 2017 as his brother was under a lot of pressure from [the applicant’s girlfriend’s] brothers.
● His younger brother is not mentally sound and needs someone to look after him and is currently living with their sister.
● His family blames him for the death of his parents.
● [The applicant’s girlfriend’s] brothers were AL [Awami League] supporters.”
The delegate also summarised the applicant’s “significant reasons” to fear persecution from the 14 December 2018 post interview submissions which stated (at CB 155.6):
“…The post interview submission stated the essential and significant reasons for [the applicant’s] fear of persecution as:
● Actual and imputed Political Opinion
o BNP supporter opposed to the Awami League (AL)
● Membership of a particular social group
o Son of a local village BNP Chairman at risk of being a victim of a revenge killing from AL supporters/mastaans who hold him responsible for the death of their sister.”
The delegate ultimately found, after considering the claims individually and cumulatively, that the applicant did not face a real chance of persecution now, or in the foreseeable future, if he were to return to Bangladesh (CB 162.4). The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant met the criteria under ss.36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Act (CB 162.5 to CB 163.10).
The IAA
The applicant’s matter was referred to the IAA on 25 February 2019 (CB 174).
The IAA was notified that the applicant had appointed a new representative on 25 February 2019 (CB 169 – CB 171). The IAA sent the applicant’s new representative email correspondence attaching the applicant’s SHEV application and supporting documents, the decision record, and the department’s notification letter, on 25 February 2019 (CB 184).
The applicant’s representative was sent further email correspondence on 25 February 2019 attaching an audio recording of the applicant’s protection visa interview, in two parts, in separate emails (CB 185 – CB 186). In addition, the IAA sent the applicant’s representative a further two emails on 25 February 2019 attaching the applicant’s arrival interview audio recording, in two parts (at CB 187 – CB 188).
The applicant’s representative sent the IAA further correspondence by way of email on 18 March 2019, attaching written submissions (CB 189 – CB 194).
The applicant was notified by email on 28 March 2019 (CB 195 and CB 208) that the IAA had affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, attaching the decision record (CB 196 – CB 206).
As set out above, the applicant’s representative made various submissions to the IAA. The IAA considered these in light of s.473DD of the Act.
The IAA found that those parts of the submissions that addressed the delegate’s reasons and findings were to be: “…regarded as argument rather than ‘information’”, for the purposes of s.473DD of the Act. The IAA did have regard to those parts of the submissions ([3] at CB 197).
The submissions also referred to four publications or reports. The IAA found that three of those publications had already been included in submissions to the delegate and were therefore not “new information” ([4] at CB 197).
The IAA found that the fourth report was not before the delegate and was therefore new information ([4] at CB 197). However, the IAA reasoned that the report was dated in 2014 and there was no explanation as to why it could not have been given to the delegate prior to the making of the delegate’s decision on 20 February 2019 ([4] at CB 197).
Further, the IAA found the information was comprised of country information and was satisfied that it was not: “…credible personal information in the relevant sense” ([4] at CB 197).
The IAA found that the information did not satisfy either of the requirements of s.473DD(b) of the Act, and the IAA was: “…precluded from considering this information.” ([4] at CB 197).
In context this can be fairly understood as meaning that given that the “primary rule” in s.473DD of the Act is that the IAA must not consider new information unless both s.473DD(a) and (b) of the Act are met, then the applicant’s inability to satisfy either of the alternatives in s.473DD(b) of the Act meant that the prohibition against considering new information stood. (Plaintiff M174/2016 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] HCA 16 at [22], [31] – [34], [78], and [100], and see also Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v BBS16 [2017] FCAFC 176 at [102], AQU17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 111 at [13], AUH17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 388 at [33], BRA16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 127 at [26]).
The IAA summarised the applicant’s claims to fear harm as follows (at [6], CB 198):
“● His father held a paid position in the BNP and the applicant would assist him by informing BNP supporters when rallies were being held, distributing pamphlets and related material. He was not otherwise employed and his father supported him financially. He has been beaten and tortured because of his BNP affiliation. If he returns to Bangladesh he will again be harmed by supporters of the Bangladesh Awami League (AL), who are currently in power and act with impunity;
● He cannot change his political views and has joined a group in Australia that supports the BNP. This will be used against him if he is returned to Bangladesh;
● He was in a relationship with a girl, T. Her brothers beat and tortured him. T was forcibly married to her cousin and committed suicide. Her brothers blame the applicant for her death and are still looking for him. They are also members of the AL. They will harm him if he is returned to any part of Bangladesh;
● It is submitted that he would be unable to obtain family support on return to Bangladesh as his own family have ostracised him due to their belief his personal troubles were the reasons for both his parents’ deaths and his brother’s disappearance in 2017;
● He suffers from medical conditions and it is submitted that access to the level of care he needs into the future is not available in Bangladesh.”
The IAA accepted that the applicant was a Bangladeshi national of Bengali ethnicity and Muslim faith and that his parents had passed away in 2012 ([7] at CB 198).
The IAA found that the applicant gave generally consistent evidence across his arrival interview, statement of claims, and during the interview with the delegate, particularly regarding the dates of a number of “key events” in his life leading to his departure from Bangladesh ([8] at CB 198).
This included the applicant’s claims regarding two protests against the kidnapping of the BNP member of parliament in April 2012 ([8] at CB 198), as well as his claim that when returning home from the second protest on 24 April 2012 he was attacked by a number of men, beaten unconscious, and as a result his mother died of a heart attack ([9] at CB 198 – CB 199).
However, the IAA had “concerns” regarding the applicant’s claim that he and two friends fled from a fight between BNP members and the Awami League at the food market bazaar and relocated to India. The IAA noted that it was some 490km from the applicant’s village to the Indian border, and did not consider it “plausible” that the applicant had taken a taxi to the border and telephoned his father ([10] at CB 199).
The IAA further noted a “variation” to this evidence as between the applicant’s protection visa application and at his protection visa interview, and the evidence in the submissions to the delegate ([10] at CB 199).
The IAA considered the applicant’s varying evidence regarding his father’s position within the BNP and his later submissions that his father was a “village chairman” ([11] at CB 199 – CB 200). It noted discrepancies between the applicant’s claims concerning his father at his arrival interview, in his statement of claims, at his protection visa interview, and in later submissions, and also considered country information ([11] at CB 199 – CB 200). It accepted that his father was a: “…member and local official of the BNP” ([11] at CB 200). However, the IAA found that his father was not a village or “UP” (Union Parishad or rural council) Chairman ([11] at CB 200).
The IAA considered the applicant’s claims regarding the October 2012 incident where Awami League members allegedly threatened his father and family on 12 October 2012, and his father’s subsequent death on 13 October 2012. The IAA further considered the applicant’s claim regarding the purported attack against him by Awami League members on his way to visit his father’s grave on 23 November 2012 ([12] – [14] at CB 200 – CB 201).
The IAA considered it improbable that the “claimed assailants” spotted him under a heap of clothes he hid under in the motor vehicle he took to the cemetery, and did not accept that this occurred ([13] at CB 200). Further, the applicant provided a “Letter of release” from a health facility he claimed to have attended after the alleged November 2012 attack, but the IAA did not accept that the letter was genuine and found that it undermined his credibility ([13] at CB 200).
The IAA found that despite the applicant’s “broadly consistent” detail regarding his claims that after helping his father with “BNP business” he was attacked by Awami League members on 24 April 2012 and 23 November 2012, was attacked with a knife on 3 June 2012, and that he was sought after and his father was threatened at his home on 12 October 2012 by the Awami League, the IAA did not accept that the applicant was targeted by members of the Awami League “as claimed”. The applicant was not able: “…to answer the delegate’s questions on BNP ideology or policies” ([14] at CB 200). Further, the IAA noted that the applicant had consistently stated he was not a member of the BNP. The IAA found that he was not such a member ([14] at CB 200).
Further, the IAA found that the applicant did not claim that his father was targeted for harm, or that the applicant was specifically targeted for harm, as a result of his father’s BNP membership or activities, and therefore did not find the applicant’s claims “plausible”, or that he suffered harm in Bangladesh as a result of his purported political opinions or activities ([14] at CB 201).
The IAA also found “…a number of plausibility and consistency issues” with the applicant’s claims concerning his relationship with a girl, “T” ([16] at CB 201). The applicant claimed that her brothers, whom he said were members of the Awami League, did not approve of the relationship, were involved in the attacks against the applicant, and threats against his father, and blamed the applicant for T’s suicide as a result of being forced to marry someone else ([15] – [16] at CB 201). The IAA did not accept these claims as a result of the “many inconsistencies” in the applicant’s evidence ([16] at CB 201).
The IAA concluded that the applicant’s above claims were “fabrications” to “further his claims for protection” ([17] at CB 201). The IAA considered the “recent” submissions that the applicant’s family ostracised him because they considered that his actions resulted in his parents’ deaths ([17] at CB 201). The IAA did not accept this claim ([17] at CB 202).
The IAA also rejected the applicant’s claim that T’s brothers would be able to locate him “anywhere in Bangladesh” because of their Awami League connections. This was based on country information, and the fact that the applicant’s statement indicated that he had resided in Bangladesh between October 2012 to January 2013 with various relatives, and had not been located ([18] at CB 202). The IAA went as far as to consider this claim as “entirely speculative” ([18] at CB 202).
Despite the applicant’s claim to have joined the “Australian BNP chapter” and to have attended some events, the IAA did not accept that he became a member in Australia ([19] at CB 202).
The IAA did not accept “recent claims” in the applicant’s 6 April 2017 statement of claims that his brother had contacted him regarding Awami League members looking for the applicant at his brother’s house. The applicant stated in his protection visa interview that his brother had been missing since 13 January 2017. The applicant submitted that the reason he did not mention his brother’s disappearance in his statement of claims was because: “…he simply forgot or it was too hard to talk about it”. The IAA found that there were “significant” inconsistencies between his statement of claims and oral evidence concerning this claim ([20] at CB 202).
The IAA also considered claims concerning the applicant’s medical conditions and submissions that he would not be able to have: “…access to the level of care” he required to treat these conditions in Bangladesh. From the two medical letters provided by the applicant, the IAA noted that “no ongoing treatment is needed” ([21] at CB 202).
In all, the IAA found that the applicant did not meet s.36(2)(a) of the Act for the following reasons ([30] at CB 205).
The IAA found that the applicant did not have a “well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of his political opinion” ([26] at CB 204). It found that the applicant had never been a member of the BNP, so did not face a real chance of harm from the authorities or security forces for his political views ([24] at CB 203).
Further, the IAA considered country information. It rejected the applicant’s claims regarding the claimed attacks in 2012 by the Awami League, and did not accept that the applicant was the subject of a search by the Awami League: “…in October 2012 and again on or before 13 January 2017”. The IAA concluded: “…that the applicant was and is of no interest to [Awami League] activists” ([25] at CB 203 – CB 204).
The IAA did not accept that the applicant was harmed in 2012 because of his relationship with T, or that T’s brothers intended to harm him if he returned to Bangladesh. The IAA did not accept that his family blamed him for his parents’ deaths and had ostracised him as a result ([27] at CB 204).
While the IAA accepted the applicant’s evidence to have medical conditions, it did not accept that he would not be able to access necessary treatment as a result of: “…his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion”. As a result, the IAA found that he did not have a “well-founded fear of persecution” for these reasons ([27] at CB 204).
The IAA was also not satisfied that the applicant would face a real chance of harm as a result of having departed illegally or being a returned failed asylum seeker ([28] – [29] at CB 204 – CB 205).
After considering his claims individually and cumulatively ([34] at CB 206), the IAA found that the applicant did not meet the complementary protection requirements so as to satisfy s.36(2)(aa) of the Act ([34] – [35] at CB 206). It was not satisfied that the applicant would be: “…unable to access treatment for his health conditions” ([33] at CB 205 – CB 206), or that he faced a real chance of harm for reason of being a BNP supporter, departing Bangladesh illegally or seeking asylum in Australia ([31] – [35] at CB 205 – CB 206).
The IAA found that the applicant did not meet the requirements under s.36(2)(a) of the Act and was not satisfied that the applicant faced: “…a real chance of any harm in Bangladesh on the basis of having made an application for asylum in Australia” ([29] at CB 205, and [22] – [30] at CB 202 to CB 205 generally). Further, the IAA found that there were not substantial grounds for believing that there was a real risk the applicant would suffer significant harm if returned to Bangladesh from Australia, so did not meet s.36(2)(aa) of the Act ([31] – [35] at CB 205 to CB 206).
The Grounds of the Application
The grounds of the application to the Court are as follows:
“Ground One:
The Immigration Assessment Authority has failed to apply the correct test pursuant to Section 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).
Particulars:
In dealing with the Applicant's claims under Section 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal explicitly failed to disaggregate the statutory formulae under Section 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
Ground Two:
The IAA denied procedural fairness to the applicant.”
Before the Court
The applicant first appeared before a Registrar of the Court on 23 May 2019 where orders were made, by consent, giving the applicant leave to file and serve an amended application by 15 August 2019. No amended application has been filed.
Orders were made on 1 May 2020 setting the matter down for final hearing on 16 July 2020. Orders were also made giving the applicant and first respondent the opportunity to file and serve written submissions 14 days and 7 days, respectively, prior to the final hearing. The Minister filed his written submissions with the Court on 9 July 2020. No further documents have been filed by the applicant.
At the final hearing the applicant appeared in person. He was assisted by an interpreter in the Bangla language.
It was clear that the applicant had little understanding of the matter he had initiated in this Court. I sought to explain to the applicant that the Court had no power to grant him a visa. The relevant issue for the Court’s consideration was whether the IAA had made a “legal mistake”.
To the extent, therefore, that the applicant made statements that, in effect, he should be granted a visa, these did not assist in revealing jurisdictional error in the IAA’s decision.
When asked to make submissions about the grounds of the application, the applicant explained that these had been drafted with the assistance of a “friend”, and he had nothing further to say.
Consideration
Ground one of the application asserts that the IAA failed to apply the correct test in relation to s.36(2)(aa) of the Act. The particulars assert that in dealing with the applicant’s claim the IAA “failed to disaggregate the statutory formulae.” [The reference to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in the ground must, in context, be understood as a reference to the IAA].
There is nothing in the evidence before the Court, and in particular the IAA’s decision record, to even indicate that the IAA misunderstood or misapplied the “correct test” in relation to s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.
As set out above, the IAA made comprehensive factual findings in relation to the applicant’s claims. Its adverse credibility findings were all reasonably open to the IAA on what was before it, and for which it gave cogent and intelligible reasons probative of the material before it.
Relevantly, of what remained of the applicant’s factual account of past events, the IAA was not satisfied that the applicant faced a real risk of harm because of his political views, or that he was, or would be, of interest to the Awami League. Further, the IAA found that the applicant was not a member of the BNP, and although he may be considered a low level supporter of the BNP, he would not face a real risk of harm for this reason if he were to return to Bangladesh.
The IAA also found that there were: “…a number of plausibility and consistency issues” with the applicant’s “narrative” concerning the claimed assaults because of a relationship with a girl – “T” ([15] – [16] at CB 201). For reasons given, the IAA rejected that he suffered harm in the past for this reason as claimed ([16] at CB 201).
These findings were also reasonably open to the IAA on what was before it, and for which it gave reasons probative of the evidence before it (see generally ReMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Durairajasingham [2000] HCA 1; (2000) 168 ALR 407; (2000) 74 ALJR 405, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf [2001] HCA 30; (2001) 180 ALR 1). There is nothing in the current case to indicate that the IAA fell into legal error in this aspect of its task.
The IAA’s specific consideration of the criterion at s.36(2)(aa) of the Act is at [31] – [34] (CB 205 – CB 206) of its decision record. In making this assessment the IAA was entitled to rely on factual findings made and explained earlier in its decision record (SZSGA v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship [2013] FCA 774 at [55] – [57] per Robertson J, and SZSHK v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2013] FCAFC 125; (2013) 138 ALD 26).
In all, ground one is not made out.
Ground two asserts that the IAA denied the applicant procedural fairness. No particulars whatsoever are provided. The applicant made no submissions on this ground.
In the circumstances I agree with the Minister that the failure to particularise this bald assertion is sufficient for the ground to be dismissed. In essence, the allegation is so broad as to be meaningless (WZAVW v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 760 at [35]).
In any event, the conduct of the review before the IAA was subject to the provisions of Part 7AA of the Act. Section 473DA of the Act provides that what is set out in Division 3 of Part 7AA the Act is the exhaustive statement of the natural justice hearing rule as it applied to, relevantly, the applicant’s matter (DGZ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 12 at [69]).
The IAA was statutorily obliged to consider the review relevantly, with reference to s.473DB of the Act and all the sections up to s.473DF of the Act. There is nothing in the evidence before the Court to even indicate that the IAA breached, or failed to properly apply, these provisions. Ground two is not made out.
Conclusion
There is no jurisdictional error arising from the grounds of the application. In circumstances also where the IAA’s findings of fact were all reasonably open to it on what was before it, it is appropriate to dismiss the application. I will make that order.
I certify that the preceding seventy-two (72) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Nicholls
Associate:
Date: 23 July 2020
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Jurisdiction
-
Statutory Construction
1
13
2