FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
CPC19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FedCFamC2G 540
File number: ADG 235 of 2019 Judgment of: JUDGE YOUNG Date of judgment: 9 June 2023 Catchwords: MIGRATION LAW – application for review of a decision of the AAT to refuse the applicant a protection visa – where the applicant is a citizen of Malaysia – where the applicant claims to be at risk of harm from loan sharks – where the Tribunal was not satisfied the applicant was telling the truth – where the application for review does not describe a conventional ground of review – where the applicant disagrees with the decision of the Tribunal – the court is not satisfied there has been jurisdictional error – the application is dismissed. Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s5J (1)(a) Division: Division 2 General Federal Law Number of paragraphs: 5 Date of hearing: 9 June 2023 Place: Darwin Solicitor for the Applicant: Self-Represented Litigant Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Ellis Solicitor for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore ORDERS
ADG 235 of 2019 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: CPC19
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent
order made by:
JUDGE YOUNG
DATE OF ORDER:
9 JUNE 2023
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Application filed on 1 July 2019 be dismissed.
2.The Applicant pay the costs of the First Respondent in the sum of $6,500.
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 is an application for judicial review of the AAT affirming a decision of the Minister’s delegate made on 28 February 2017.
The applicant is a citizen of Malaysia. He claims, in very simple terms, to be at risk of harm from loan sharks should he return to Malaysia. The Tribunal was not satisfied the applicant was telling the truth about his claims because his claims were, according to the Tribunal, vague, inconsistent and lacking in detail. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant’s claims amounted to refugee claims of the kind described in section 5J(1)(a) of the Migration Act. However, the Tribunal considered the applicant’s claims to fear harm should he return to Malaysia, under the complementary protection heading - that is, whether he was at real risk of serious harm from the criminals that he said that he had borrowed money from.
The Tribunal, after referring to DFAT country information, did not accept the applicant’s claims that the police in Malaysia were unable to offer him effective protection. His application was refused by the Tribunal. The grounds set out in the application for review to this Court do not describe any conventional ground of jurisdictional error.
The applicant simply takes issue with the Tribunal’s finding that his claims were not credible. The applicant’s claim simply disagrees with the Tribunal’s finding that he was not telling the truth. I attempted to explain to the applicant today what kinds of error this Court would consider before setting aside a decision of the Tribunal. The applicant was unable to describe any relevant error, but simply said that the Tribunal overlooked the seriousness of his case. In the result, I am not satisfied the applicant has pointed to jurisdictional error or error of the relevant kind, and the application is dismissed.
There will be an order for costs in the sum of $6,500, otherwise the application is dismissed.
I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment of Judge Young. Associate:
Dated: 22 June 2023
- AGLC
- CPC19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FedCFamC2G 540
- Case
- [2023] FedCFamC2G 540
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the AAT erred in its decision to refuse the applicant a protection visa. The court was tasked with determining whether the AAT's decision involved any jurisdictional error or other relevant errors warranting judicial review. The applicant did not argue that the AAT had made a jurisdictional error, but rather took issue with the AAT's finding that his claims were not credible. The court had to consider whether the applicant's disagreement with the AAT's finding of credibility amounted to an error warranting judicial intervention.
Judge Young found that the applicant's application for review did not describe any conventional ground of review, such as jurisdictional error. The applicant simply disagreed with the AAT's assessment of his credibility and did not identify any relevant error in the AAT's decision-making process. The judge explained to the applicant the types of errors that would warrant judicial review, but the applicant could not point to any such error. As a result, the court was not satisfied that there had been any jurisdictional error or relevant error, and the application for review was dismissed.
The court ordered that the application filed on 1 July 2019 be dismissed and that the applicant pay the costs of the first respondent in the sum of $6,500. The court's order was subject to the entry in the Court's records and could be varied or set aside to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors, or to record a variation to the order.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.