CTY18 (by their litigation guardian CTW18) v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

[2024] FedCFamC2G 903

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 2)

CTY18 (by their litigation guardian CTW18) v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FedCFamC2G 903

File number(s):	MLG 1480 of 2018
Judgment of:	JUDGE RILEY
Date of judgment:	15 August 2024
Catchwords:	MIGRATION – protection visa – Administrative Appeals Tribunal – applicant being the son of the applicant in CTW18 v Minister – applicant making no protection claims of his own.
Division:	Division 2 General Federal Law
Number of paragraphs:	7
Date of hearing:	15 August 2024
Place:	Melbourne
Advocate for the Applicant:	In person
Advocate for the First Respondent:	Michelle Stone
Advocate for the Second Respondent:	No appearance
Solicitor for the First and Second Respondents:	Australian Government Solicitors Office

ORDERS

MLG 1480 of 2018

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

CTY18 (BY HIS LITIGATION GUARDIAN CTW18)
Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE RILEY
DATE OF ORDER:	15 AUGUST 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application filed on 29 May 2018 be dismissed.

2.The applicant by his litigation guardian pay the first respondent’s costs of the proceeding fixed in the sum of $4,500.

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
(revised from transcript)

JUDGE RILEY:

1. This is an application for review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of the delegate refusing the applicant a protection visa. The applicant is the son of the applicant in the matter of CTW18 v the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs and Another, MLG1479/2018.

2. The applicant is a child. The applicant in CTW18 was appointed as his litigation guardian. The applicant in CTW18 appeared on behalf of the applicant in the present matter at the hearing this morning.

3. The applicant’s father, CTW18, applied for a protection visa on 18 March 2016. A few months later, on 26 June 2016, the applicant was born in Australia. The applicant was taken to have applied for a protection visa at the time of his birth. The application was dealt with in conjunction with the father’s protection visa application. A protection visa application form was lodged on the applicant’s behalf.  The applicant did not make any claims of his own. The matter was dealt with on the basis that the applicant is part of the family unit of CTW18. 

4. The Tribunal dealt with this matter in a separate decision from the decision in CTW18. However, the Tribunal’s reasoning was essentially the same as in the matter involving CTW18. The application to this court contains the same grounds of review as were made in CTW18. The applicant today substantially relied on the oral submissions made by his father in the matter of CTW18.

5. In addition, CTW18 said today that he wanted his son to be able to make his own decision about what religion he would have. That does not go to any possible jurisdictional error that the Tribunal might have made.

6. CTW18 also said to the court today that he did not make any particular claims about his son because he did not know what the next steps would be. However, again, that does not point to any jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal.

7. The application by the applicant’s father was dismissed earlier this morning in the matter of CTW18. The present matter must also be dismissed for the same reasons. 

I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Riley.

Associate:

Dated:       13 September 2024