CZC19 v Minister for Immigration and Anor - [2020] FCCA 1105

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CZC19 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2020] FCCA 1105

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Immigration Assessment Authority – application for a Safe Haven Enterprise Visa – whether the Authority failed to exercise its jurisdiction – whether the Authority excluded information as being new information – whether there is jurisdictional error – no jurisdictional error made out – application is dismissed.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.5AAA, 473

Cases cited:

BDR18 v The Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCA 212

CVV16 v The Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 1890

DTK17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) 265 FCR 538

Plaintiff M174/2016 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018)

264 CLR 217

Applicant:

CZC19

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Second Respondent:

IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY

File Number:

SYG 1974 of 2019

Judgment of:

Judge Humphreys

Hearing date:

7 May 2020

Date of Last Submission:

7 May 2020

Delivered at:

Parramatta

Delivered on:

7 May 2020

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr Godwin

Counsel for the Respondents:

Mr Kay Hoyle

Solicitors for the Respondents:

Clayton Utz

ORDERS

Grant leave for the Applicant to rely upon the Amended Application filed 17 May 2020.
The application is dismissed.
The Applicant to pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the amount of $7467.00.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT PARRAMATTA

SYG 1974 of 2019

CZC19

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

(Revised from transcript)

Introduction

The applicant claims to be an Arab and Shia Muslim from Southern Iraq. On 5 May 2013, the applicant departed Iraq using his lawful passport and arrived at Christmas Island on 17 May 2013, as an unauthorised maritime arrival. On 6 April 2017, the applicant lodged an application for Safe Haven Enterprise Visa (SHEV). The applicant claimed to fear harm from Shia militia because of his brother’s work as a bodyguard for the then Iraqi Prime Minister.
On 17 June 2019, a delegate of the Minister for Immigration (“the delegate”) refused to grant the visa. The applicant was referred to the Immigration Assessment Authority (“the Authority”) for merits review.
In a decision dated 23 July 2019, the Authority affirmed the delegate’s decision not to grant the applicant the protection visa.
The applicant now seeks judicial review of the Authority’s decision.

The Immigration Assessment Authority’s Decision

Given the limited scope of the grant of appeal, which is set out below, it is not necessary to summarise the entirety of the Authority’s decision. The Authority did not accept the applicant’s claims that he was threatened by a militia group, who were trying to get his brother to follow their demands. The Authority did not accept that the applicant was further threatened when the group found out that the he had made a complaint to police. In so doing, the Authority noted that, while it accepted the applicant may have been threatened by…

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 CZC19 v Minister for Immigration and Anor 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: [2020] FCCA 1105
Decision Date: 7 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, CZC19, sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) concerning their application for a Safe Haven Enterprise Visa. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the IAA had failed to exercise its jurisdiction by improperly excluding certain information provided by the applicant. The matter was heard by Judge Humphreys in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the IAA committed a jurisdictional error by failing to consider all relevant information provided by the applicant, and specifically, whether the IAA was correct in its assessment that certain information constituted "new information" which it was not obliged to consider under the relevant legislative framework. The applicant contended that the IAA's exclusion of this information amounted to a failure to exercise its jurisdiction.

Judge Humphreys found that the IAA had not made a jurisdictional error. The Court reasoned that the IAA had properly applied the legislative provisions governing the assessment of "new information." The IAA's determination that the information in question did not meet the criteria for being considered "new information" that it was required to consider was a finding of fact within its jurisdiction. Therefore, the IAA had not failed to exercise its jurisdiction, nor had it acted outside of its powers.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

Orders