Buy17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

The matter involves an appeal by Malaysian citizens, who are the appellants, against orders of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The appellants, who last arrived in Australia in 2015, seek to overturn the decisions that denied them protection visas. The first appellant, who is the mother of the other appellants, claimed to fear harm in Malaysia due to her ex-husband's past conduct, her Chinese ethnicity, her status as a single mother, her Buddhist faith and interest in Christianity, her political activity, and physical and emotional abuse from her parents and other family members. The Tribunal did not accept the first appellant's claims, finding that any domestic violence had ceased and that there was no evidence to support her claims of ongoing harm or threats to her or her children.

The court had to decide several legal issues, including whether the Court-supplied interpreter correctly interpreted the first appellant's evidence, whether the Tribunal's conclusions regarding country information were irrational, and whether the Tribunal failed to have regard to material before it. The court considered whether the appellants could rely on new evidence presented on appeal and whether leave should be granted for these new grounds. The court also evaluated whether the fresh evidence, if accepted, would likely have changed the outcome of the case. The court found that the appellants did not establish that the Tribunal's findings were not open to it on the material before it and that the new evidence was not sufficient to warrant a different result.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal's decision was open on the evidence before it and that the new evidence presented on appeal did not meet the criteria for being admitted. The court also noted that the appellants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for not presenting the new evidence at the primary hearing. The court concluded that the appeal was without merit and dismissed it, ordering that the appellants pay the first respondent's costs.