FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| DAA16 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2020] FCCA 2553 |
| Catchwords: MIGRATION – Application to review decision of Immigration Assessment Authority – whether the Authority reached an arbitrary and irrational conclusion – whether failure to give proper, genuine and realistic consideration to the merits of the case. |
| Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth) |
| Applicant: | DAA16 |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS |
| Second Respondent: | IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY |
| File Number: | SYG 2803 of 2016 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Barnes |
| Hearing date: | 26 November 2019 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 11 September 2020 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Ms Baw |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Kah Lawyers |
| Counsel for the Respondents: | Ms Laing |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Clayton Utz |
ORDERS
The name of the First Respondent be amended to read “Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs”.
The application be dismissed.
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 2803 of 2016
| DAA16 |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS |
First Respondent
| IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Background
This is an application for review of a decision of the Immigration Assessment Authority (the Authority) dated 14 September 2016 affirming a decision of a delegate of the First Respondent not to…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Daa16 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
- [2020] FCCA 2553
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application to review a decision of the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) regarding the credibility of the applicant's claims about repercussions in Iran. The applicant contended that the IAA's conclusion was arbitrary and irrational, and that the IAA failed to give proper, genuine, and realistic consideration to the merits of the case.
The central legal issue before the Court was whether the IAA's adverse credibility finding constituted jurisdictional error. This required the Court to determine if the IAA's decision-making process was legally unreasonable, specifically whether it was founded on probative material and logical grounds, or if it reached a finding without a logical, rational, or probative basis.
Judge Barnes applied principles established in cases such as *DAO16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection* and *Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS*. The Court affirmed that while findings as to credit are generally for the decision-maker, they are not beyond scrutiny on judicial review. Adverse credibility findings may involve jurisdictional error if they are legally unreasonable or lack a logical or probative basis. The Court noted that a decision might be considered irrational if only one conclusion was open on the evidence, but the decision-maker did not reach it, or if the decision was not open on the evidence. However, the Court cautioned that a high degree of caution must be exercised to avoid impermissibly engaging in merits review, requiring a demonstration of "extreme" illogicality, not merely a difference of opinion on the facts.
The central legal issue before the Court was whether the IAA's adverse credibility finding constituted jurisdictional error. This required the Court to determine if the IAA's decision-making process was legally unreasonable, specifically whether it was founded on probative material and logical grounds, or if it reached a finding without a logical, rational, or probative basis.
Judge Barnes applied principles established in cases such as *DAO16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection* and *Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS*. The Court affirmed that while findings as to credit are generally for the decision-maker, they are not beyond scrutiny on judicial review. Adverse credibility findings may involve jurisdictional error if they are legally unreasonable or lack a logical or probative basis. The Court noted that a decision might be considered irrational if only one conclusion was open on the evidence, but the decision-maker did not reach it, or if the decision was not open on the evidence. However, the Court cautioned that a high degree of caution must be exercised to avoid impermissibly engaging in merits review, requiring a demonstration of "extreme" illogicality, not merely a difference of opinion on the facts.
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
This ground concerns the Authority’s approach to the credibility of the Applicant’s claims about the repercussions of the claimed events in Iran. It is not in dispute that, notwithstanding the subjective nature of the assessment required by the Authority and what the Full Court of the Federal Court described in BEH15 at [34] as the “factual nature” of an assessment of credibility, the Authority’s decision (like that of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal) must be made “within the bounds of legal reasonableness”. While ground 1 is expressed in terms of irrationality, in the particulars and in submissions counsel for the Applicant also referred to legal unreasonableness in that it was asserted that the Authority’s decision-making was not founded on probative material and logical grounds. The explanation of relevant principles in DAO16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) 258 FCR 175; [2018] FCAFC 2 as cited in BEH15 at [34] is in point. As the Full Court stated in DAO16 at [30]:(1) While findings as to credit are generally matters for the administrative decision maker, this does not mean that such findings as to credit are beyond scrutiny on judicial review: CQG15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 146 (CQG15) at [37]-[38] (the Court). The question of whether a credibility finding is tainted by jurisdictional error is a case specific inquiry, and is not assessed by reference to fixed categories or formulaeARG15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 174; (2016) 250 FCR 109 (ARG15) at [83](b)). In each case it is necessary to analyse in detail what the decision-maker has decided: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZRKT [2013] FCA 317; (2013) 212 FCR 99 (SZRKT) at [77] (Robertson J).(2) Without derogating from the case specific nature of the inquiry, adverse credibility findings may involve jurisdictional error on recognised grounds such as legal unreasonableness or reaching a finding without a logical, rational or probative basis (ARG15 at [83](d)). In this regard, Crennan and Bell JJ explained in Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS [2010] HCA 16; (2010) 240 CLR 611 (SZMDS) that:135. … A decision might be said to be illogical or irrational if only one conclusion is open on the evidence, and the decision maker does not come to that conclusion, or if the decision to which the decision maker came was simply not open on the evidence or if there is no logical connection between the evidence and the inferences or conclusions drawn.(Emphasis added)…(4) Findings or reasoning along the way to reaching a conclusion by the decision-maker that are illogical or irrational may establish jurisdictional error (SZMDS at [132] (Crennan and Bell JJ)). In this regard, with respect to the significance of an illogical or irrational finding as to credit to the administrative decision necessary to establish jurisdictional error, Wigney J explained in Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZUXN [2016] FCA 516 (in a passage approved in CQG15 at [60]) that: 56. An irrational or illogical finding, or irrational or illogical reasoning leading to a finding, by the Tribunal that the review applicant was not a credible or honest witness may in some circumstances lead to a finding of jurisdictional error. That would particularly be the case where the adverse credibility finding was critical to the Tribunal’s decision that it was not satisfied that the applicant met the criteria for the grant of a visa. Whilst it is frequently said that findings as to credit are entirely matters for the Tribunal, such findings do not shield the Tribunal’s decision-making processes from scrutiny… (citations omitted)(5) A high degree of caution must, however, be exercised before finding that adverse findings as to credit expose jurisdictional error in order to ensure that the Court does not embark impermissibly upon merits review: SZMDS at [96]; SZVAP at [14]-[15]. As such, to establish jurisdictional error based on illogical or irrational findings of fact or reasoning, “extreme” illogicality must be demonstrated “measured against the standard that it is not enough for the question of fact to be one on which reasonable minds may come to different conclusions” (SZRKT at [148]; see also SZMDS at [135] and CQG15 at [60]). Thus, “[e]ven emphatic disagreement with the Tribunal’s reasoning would not be sufficient to make out illogicality”: CQG15 at [61].
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.