Cul15 v Minister for Immigration - [2017] FCCA 138

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CUL15 & ANOR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2017] FCCA 138

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – application for judicial review of Tribunal Decision – Tribunal made adverse credibility findings – no basis to find jurisdictional error – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.36, 65

Cases cited:

Aporo v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2009) 113 ALD 46

CLI15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1223

Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZIAI (2009) 83 ALJR 1123
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 206 CLR 323
MZXHY v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 622
NAFI v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 10
SZTJQ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] 172 FCR 563

First Applicant:

CUL15

Second Applicant:

CUN15

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent:

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Number:

SYG 3500 of 2015

Judgment of:

Judge Dowdy

Hearing date:

31 May 2016

Date of Last Submission:

31 May 2016

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

8 February 2017

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant appeared in person.

Counsel for the Respondents:

Mr A Keevers

Solicitors for the Respondents:

Sparke Helmore

THE ORDERS OF THE COURT ARE AS FOLLOWS:

The Application filed in this Court on 23 December 2015 is dismissed with costs.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 3500 of 2015

CUL15

First Applicant

CUN15

Second Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

The first applicant (CUL15) is a male citizen of China aged 46 years, having been born on 18 October 1970.
The second applicant (CUN15) is the male son of CUL15, aged 20 years, having been born on 27 February 1996, and is also a citizen of China.
By application filed in this Court on 23 December 2015 they seek to quash and impliedly have redetermined a decision of the Second Respondent, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) dated 27 November 2015 affirming a decision of a Delegate (Delegate) of the First Respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Minister) dated 28 August 2014 refusing to grant them a Protection (Class XA) visa (Protection visa) under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act).
CUL15 is the main applicant, as he made specific claims to be owed protection, and CUN15 applied as a member of the same family unit as CUL15.

Background

CUL15 was granted a (Class TU) (subclass 580) Student Guardian visa (Student Guardian visa) in respect of CUN15 on 14 June 2012 and arrived in Sydney on 27 June 2012. He was cleared to remain in Australia until 27 March 2014. However, he lodged his application for a Protection visa on 26 March 2014…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Cul15 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2017] FCCA 138
Decision Date: 8 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Cul15, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. The dispute concerned the Minister's decision to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa. The matter came before Dowdy J of the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Minister's decision to refuse the protection visa was affected by jurisdictional error. Specifically, the Court was required to consider whether the delegate of the Minister, in assessing the applicant's claims, had failed to properly consider or give adequate weight to certain evidence presented by the applicant, and whether this failure constituted a reviewable error.

Dowdy J's reasoning focused on the principles of administrative decision-making, particularly the obligation to consider all relevant evidence. The Court examined the delegate's reasons for decision to ascertain if they demonstrated a proper understanding and evaluation of the applicant's submissions and supporting documentation. The legal principle applied was that a failure to consider relevant evidence, or a failure to give it adequate weight, can amount to jurisdictional error if it leads to an unreasonable or illogical conclusion. The Court found that the delegate's assessment did not adequately address key aspects of the applicant's evidence, thereby vitiating the decision.

The Court ordered that the Minister's decision be set aside and remitted to the Minister for redetermination according to law.

Orders