CKA19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs
[2023] FedCFamC2G 365
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
CKA19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FedCFamC2G 365
File number: ADG 215 of 2019 Judgment of: JUDGE YOUNG Date of judgment: 20 April 2023 Catchwords: MIGRATION – application for review of a decision of the AAT to deny the applicant a protection visa - where the applicant has not alleged any conventional ground of jurisdictional error – where the applicant is a citizen of Malaysia - where the applicant claims to fear harm from her boyfriend and from loan sharks – where the applicant told the Tribunal she no longer feared harm in Malaysia – where there is no ground of review revealed in the application – the court is satisfied the application should be dismissed. Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 5J(1)(a) Division: Division 2 General Federal Law Number of paragraphs: 4 Date of hearing: 20 April 2023 Place: Darwin Solicitor for the Applicant: Self- Represented Litigant Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Chan Solicitor for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore ORDERS
ADG 215 of 2019 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: CKA19
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent
order made by:
JUDGE Young
DATE OF ORDER:
20 April 2023
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Application filed on 18 June 2019 be dismissed.
2.The Applicant pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $5,000.00.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Judge Young
This an application for judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal made on 28 May 2019. The applicant filed an application for review within time, as far as I can see, and the only ground set out, and I will read it as best I can, is as follows:
I still fear harm by boyfriend and loan shark due to boyfriend inability to pay the money. I need protection from the country, which I am single mother and move my daughter to West Malaysia for study because of the loan shark problem. And this is the matter that I am not agreed with Tribunal.
That, of course, does not disclose any conventional ground of jurisdictional error. I attempted to explain to the applicant that my power is limited to review for jurisdictional error and the Court has no power to simply reconsider a decision. There is a Federal Court authority to say that if an application lacks particulars or does not disclose any recognisable ground of review, then a court is not required to consider the matter further, beyond, of course, reading the decision itself and considering whether some error is disclosed in that way. I have read the decision and I am satisfied that there is no error disclosed.
The background, briefly, is that the applicant arrived in Australia in August 2016 on a Tourist Visa. Sometime later, she applied for a Protection Visa and she alleged that her then boyfriend had borrowed money from loan sharks in Malaysia. As the Tribunal noted, there was very little detail about that, not surprisingly, as the applicant said that she had not known about this beforehand. She said the boyfriend then disappeared and persons whom she believed to be loan sharks or to be connected with the loan sharks had questioned her and demanded that she repay the loan. She said that she then left Malaysia for Australia. The Tribunal accepted that the boyfriend had disappeared but was not satisfied that even if he had borrowed money from loan sharks that the applicant had a well-founded fear of any kind of harm.
The Tribunal found that there was effective police protection in Malaysia against loan sharks, as money lending was illegal, and also noted that the applicant herself had said that, due to the passage of time, she had no fears were she to return to Malaysia and she was regarded by the Tribunal as having said that she came to Australia because she was depressed about her circumstances in Malaysia after her boyfriend had disappeared. The Tribunal was not satisfied that any of the material raised by the applicant described a refugee ground as enumerated in section 5J(1)(a) of the Migration Act and, similarly, it was not satisfied that, for the purposes of complementary protection, there was any risk to the applicant should she return to Malaysia. That being the case and there being no ground of review revealed in the application, none apparent to me on reading it and after hearing from the applicant, who was unable to formulate any sensible argument for review, I find the application should be dismissed.
I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment of Judge Young . Associate:
Dated: 20 April 2023
0
0
0