FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| CUD17 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2018] FCCA 1049 |
| Catchwords: MIGRATION – Protection visa application – review of Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision – whether the Tribunal erred in not seeking contemporaneous medical report concerning applicant’s medical condition – whether the Tribunal constructively failed in making a decision without such medical report – was the Tribunal’s reasoning with respect to employment in Sri Lanka irrational, illogical or without intelligible justification – no jurisdictional error – application dismissed. |
| Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.36, 414, 420, 422B |
| Applicant: | CUD17 |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION |
| Second Respondent: | ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | PEG 342 of 2017 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Smith |
| Hearing date: | 14 February 2018 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 14 February 2018 |
| Delivered at: | Perth |
| Delivered on: | 3 May 2018 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr MGS Crowley |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | AUM Legal |
| Counsel for the Respondents: | Ms S J Oliver |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Sparke Helmore |
ORDERS
The application be dismissed.
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PERTH |
PEG 342 of 2017
| CUD17 |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION |
First Respondent
| ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The applicant is a citizen of Sri Lanka who suffers from chronic schizophrenia. He arrived in Australia in August 2012 and lodged an application for a protection visa on 16 August 2013. On 4 April 2014, a delegate of the Minister for Immigration made the decision to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa and the applicant applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal[1] (RRT) for review of that decision.
[1] The functions of the Refugee Review Tribunal were taken over by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 1 July 2015.
The RRT affirmed the delegate’s decision on 8 June 2015 however, by orders made on 29 September 2015 this…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read CUD17 v Minister for Immigration and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2018] FCCA 1049
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application for judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) to affirm a delegate's decision to refuse the applicant's protection visa. The applicant, who had been diagnosed with schizophrenia, contended that his mental health condition would be exacerbated by the stress associated with the visa application process, including investigations, interrogations, and detention, leading to a relapse of his psychotic illness.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Tribunal had adequately considered the evidence regarding the applicant's chronic mental health condition, its susceptibility to stress, and the potential risks to himself and others should he experience a relapse. Specifically, the court was required to determine if the Tribunal's findings were affected by an error of law, particularly in its assessment of the medical evidence and its implications for the applicant's claim for protection.
The court examined the Tribunal's summary of the applicant's submissions and the medical reports, including those from Dr Sunil Gupta. It noted that the medical evidence consistently indicated that stress was a primary cause of the applicant's psychotic relapses and that his condition was chronic, requiring lifelong treatment. The court considered whether the Tribunal had given sufficient weight to the expert opinions that stressful circumstances, such as those anticipated by the applicant, had the potential to cause a relapse of his schizophrenia, leading to risks to himself and others. The court's reasoning focused on whether the Tribunal's conclusion was open to it on the evidence presented, particularly in light of the potential consequences of a relapse.
The court found that the Tribunal had failed to adequately consider the implications of the medical evidence concerning the applicant's chronic schizophrenia and its susceptibility to stress. Consequently, the court set aside the Tribunal's decision and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for redetermination according to law.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Tribunal had adequately considered the evidence regarding the applicant's chronic mental health condition, its susceptibility to stress, and the potential risks to himself and others should he experience a relapse. Specifically, the court was required to determine if the Tribunal's findings were affected by an error of law, particularly in its assessment of the medical evidence and its implications for the applicant's claim for protection.
The court examined the Tribunal's summary of the applicant's submissions and the medical reports, including those from Dr Sunil Gupta. It noted that the medical evidence consistently indicated that stress was a primary cause of the applicant's psychotic relapses and that his condition was chronic, requiring lifelong treatment. The court considered whether the Tribunal had given sufficient weight to the expert opinions that stressful circumstances, such as those anticipated by the applicant, had the potential to cause a relapse of his schizophrenia, leading to risks to himself and others. The court's reasoning focused on whether the Tribunal's conclusion was open to it on the evidence presented, particularly in light of the potential consequences of a relapse.
The court found that the Tribunal had failed to adequately consider the implications of the medical evidence concerning the applicant's chronic schizophrenia and its susceptibility to stress. Consequently, the court set aside the Tribunal's decision and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for redetermination according to law.
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
The relevant parts of the submission included the following:…Evidence that he has stress-induced psychosis…2.Dr Sunil Gupta (Psychiatric Registrar) – 2016a.Patient was posing risks to others and himself and it was noted that stress was one of the main causes of his psychotic relapse.b.“Any incident that increases his stress level and anxiety has potential to cause relapse of his psychotic illness. As noted in his last hospital admission, when his mental state deteriorates, he becomes at risk to himself and others”.3.Dr Sunil Gupta (Psychiatric Registrar) – 5 May 2017a.[applicant’s] conditions is chronic and therefore he will have to continue his treatment for the rest of his life. As long as he continues his treatment and stays away from stress he stays stable but if he gets noncompliant with medications or expose himself to stressful circumstances, there are potential risks of relapse of psychotic and depressive symptoms.…If forced to return…The investigations, interrogations and detention will put the client under a lot of stress. Such stressful conditions will cause a relapse of his schizophrenia.The Mills Street Centre report (2015, 2016 and 2017)●Deterioration in his mental state: bizarre behaviour, aggression, sexual disinhibition, perceptual disturbances, labile mood and impaired judgment.○Patient was posing risks to others and himself○Noted that stress was one of the main causes of his psychotic relapse○Any incident that increases his stress levels and anxiety has potential to cause relapse of his psychotic illnesses○Stress was related to his visa application.(Emphasis in original) It will be necessary later in these reasons to consider the contents of Dr Gupta’s 5 May 2017 report and to determine whether there was anything in that report that differed from the agent’s summary of it. On 26 May 2017, the Tribunal made a decision to affirm the delegate’s decision. In its reasons for decision the Tribunal first summarised the applicant’s evidence and claims. It summarised the 10 May 2017 submissions at [49]:A further submission was received after the hearing. It was submitted that the applicant has been diagnosed with schizophrenia which is currently being managed by antipsychotic medications which he is required to take for the remainder of his life. The submission refers to the various medical reports provided that confirms the diagnosis. It was submitted that if the applicant is placed under stress or is non-compliant with his medications, it is extremely likely he will relapse and experience psychotic symptoms. The submission refers to comments by the medical professionals that indicate the applicant has required acute treatment in times of significant stress, stress is one of the main causes of his psychotic relapses and the applicant’s condition is chronic and he will have to continue treatment for the remainder of his life. If the applicant becomes non-compliant with medications or exposes himself to stressful circumstances, there are potential risks of relapse of psychotic and depressive symptoms.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.