Dam19 v Minister for Immigration
[2020] FCCA 2245
•14 August 2020
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| DAM19 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2020] FCCA 2245 |
| Catchwords: MIGRATION – Protection visa – decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – whether Tribunal did not consider evidence – whether Tribunal was biased – no jurisdictional error – application dismissed. |
| Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.36, 476 |
| Cases cited: Craig v State of South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163 Minister for Immigration v Jia Legeng (2001) 178 ALR 421 NAHI v Minister for Immigration & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 10 |
| Applicant: | DAM19 |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS |
| Second Respondent: | ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | PEG 309 of 2019 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Kendall |
| Hearing date: | 13 August 2020 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 13 August 2020 |
| Delivered at: | Perth |
| Delivered on: | 14 August 2020 |
REPRESENTATION
| Applicant: | In person |
| Counsel for the First Respondent: | Ms E Tattersall |
| Second Respondent: | Submitting appearance, save as to costs |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Sparke Helmore Lawyers |
ORDERS
The application be dismissed.
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PERTH |
PEG 309 of 2019
| DAM19 |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS |
First Respondent
| ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
The applicant is a citizen of Romania. On 8 September 2010, he arrived in Australia on a Tourist visa (Court Book (“CB”) 65).
The applicant has an extensive migration history which was summarised by a delegate of the first respondent (the “Minister”) as follows (CB 65):
• On 25 November 2010 the applicant was granted another TR 676 visa that expired on 5 September 2011.
• On 2 August 2011 the applicant applied for his BT 802 Child (Residence visa) on the basis of being the ‘dependent child’ (child or, in ce1tain circumstances, step child) of their sponsor.
• On 30 September 2011 his request was refused on the grounds did not meet the legal requirement in clause 802.212 and 802.215 in Schedule 2 of the Regulations.
• The applicant applied for Review of the refusal decision and in the meantime on 3 Ap1il 2012 he was granted a Bridging A.
• On 8 June 2012 the applicant requested to waive the No Work condition imposed on his Bridging A visa.
• On 13 June 2012 his request was declined on the grounds that he had no provided sufficient evidence of expenses of his basic needs nor did he provide sufficient evidence that he had a compelling need to work and therefore the requirements of regulation 1.08 “in financial hardship” have not been met.
• On 28 November 2012 the Tribunal affirmed the Department’s decision not to grant him Child (Residence visa).
• The applicant applied for a Judicial Review and in the meantime on 28 December 2012 a Bridging A visa was granted with visa No Work condition.
• On 17 January 2013 the applicant requested to waive No Work condition that was imposed on his Bridging A visa.
• On 27 February 2013 his request was refused on the grounds that he has not demonstrated a compelling need to work.
• On 23 July 2013 he received a negative outcome from a Judicial Review.
• On 7 August 2013 the applicant applied for Ministerial Intervention and in the meantime he was granted a Bridging visa E (subclass 050).
• On 1 May 2014 the Ministerial Intervention was refused to the applicant.
• On 9 May 2014 the applicant lodged his Protection visa (PV) application.
On 9 May 2014, the applicant applied for a Protection (class XA) visa (the “visa”) (CB 1-26). His claims for protection can be summarised as follows:
a)the applicant left Romania for political reasons as he is a “human activist” and believes in equal rights. As he was an active activist he is wanted by the government and the mafia;
b)the applicant has experienced harm during various demonstrations when he was at university and from social protests. The government and mafia will harm him on return like they have done to his classmates and anyone who holds the same beliefs as the applicant; and
c)the applicant cannot rely on the authorities as there is too much corruption and the mafia is too strong to overcome.
The applicant attended a hearing before a Ministerial delegate on 27 January 2016 (CB 56).
On 8 August 2016, the delegate refused to grant the applicant the visa (CB 60-74). The delegate found that s.36(3) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the “Act”) prevented the applicant from being owed any protection obligations as he had a right to enter or reside in a third country.
On 2 September 2016, the applicant sought review of the delegate’s decision at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) (CB 75-81).
On 7 March 2019, the Tribunal invited the applicant to attend a hearing scheduled for 28 March 2019 (CB 86-87). The applicant requested, and was granted, an adjournment on medical grounds (CB 88-92). The applicant’s hearing was rescheduled to 7 May 2019.
On 18 April 2019, the applicant requested a further adjournment on medical grounds (CB 98). The Tribunal advised him that it required medical evidence before it would determine if the adjournment would be granted (CB 100-101). The applicant was asked to provide the evidence by 29 April 2019. No evidence was forthcoming.
On 7 May 2019, the applicant appeared before the Tribunal (CB 102-105).
On 16 July 2019, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the visa (CB 109-122).
On 7 August 2019, the applicant sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision in this Court. This application is brought pursuant to s.476 of the Act. To obtain assistance from this Court, the applicant must show jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal.
Tribunal’s Decision
The Tribunal’s decision is 14 pages long and spans 102 paragraphs.
The Tribunal first provided a procedural overview of the application (at [1]-[3]).
The Tribunal then gave a detailed summary of s.36 of the Act, confirmed that it had complied with Ministerial Direction 56 and identified that the issue before it was whether the applicant met the criteria to be granted the visa (at [4]-[10]). The Tribunal also outlined the principles that are relevant to the assessment of credibility (at [31]-[32]) and noted that, while English was not the applicant’s first language, he had confirmed that he understood what was being said and asked of him and that nothing had occurred in the course of the hearing that suggested otherwise (at [33]).
The Tribunal accepted that the applicant was a citizen of Romania and noted that Romania was a member of the European Union and the European Economic Area (at [13]-[14]).
The Tribunal then summarised the delegate’s finding that the applicant was prevented from being granted the visa because of s.36(3) of the Act (at [15]-[16]).
The Tribunal then provided a more detailed exposition of the applicant’s visa history (at [17]).
The Tribunal quoted the applicant’s claims for protection as articulated in his visa application (at [18]-[22]).
The Tribunal then summarised in more detail the delegate’s decision and:
a)recorded the further details that the applicant had provided to the delegate in relation to his claims (at [23]);
b)noted that the delegate had recorded that the applicant exhibited no knowledge of the political party he claimed to be a member of (at [24]);
c)referring to the delegate’s decision, outlined the applicant’s responses and explanations for his immigration history and noted that the delegate formed the view that it was difficult to believe the applicant (at [25]-[28]);
d)stated that the delegate’s decision recorded that when asked if he had ever sought to enter or reside in another European Union country, the applicant stated he had not because at the time there were “work restrictions” (at [29]); and
e)explained that, having found that the applicant met s.36(3) of the Act, the delegate did not assess the applicant’s claims any further (at [30]).
At [34], the Tribunal noted that it had arranged for a copy of the delegate’s decision to be provided to the applicant after the hearing as the applicant was unsure if he still had a copy. It noted that it allowed the applicant an additional month to provide submissions, country information and to seek the advice of a migration agent if he wished to do so. Despite this opportunity, no further materials were provided by the applicant (at [35]).
The Tribunal then considered the applicant’s immigration history. It noted the number and type of visas the applicant had previously applied for and that there was a delay of three and a half years before the applicant applied for this visa (at [36]).
The Tribunal then:
a)noted that, after applying for the visa the subject of this review, the applicant had lodged an application for a spousal visa which was refused by a delegate and that, on review to the Tribunal, the applicant failed to appear at the hearing and the application was dismissed on that basis (at [37]); and
b)referred to the Child Residence Visa that the applicant had applied for and noted that the applicant did not attend a hearing in relation to that application (at [38]).
The Tribunal noted that it had asked the applicant why he did not apply for the visa sooner. The applicant stated that he was aware he could extend his tourist visa so he did that first. He also stated that an agent told him not to apply for the visa and instead apply for the Child Residence Visa (at [39]).
The Tribunal then stated:
40. The applicant says he now knows it was a big mistake to apply for that visa but he just took her advice. He explained that although he had taken a Masters in Law it was to do with forensics and criminal activity. His degree prepared him for a career as an investigator rather than, say, appearing in court. His studies did not help him with understanding the Australian migration system. The Tribunal accepts that his studies in Romania would not necessarily assist him with dealing with Australia’s migration system.
41. The applicant said his migration agent, Ms Ada Falcon, has since died. He also said someone he spoke to at the Department asked him if he knew that she had lost her license to practise as a migration agent for a period of time in the past. The Tribunal will make allowance for the fact that the applicant may have been given poor advice and will not draw adverse conclusions as to his credibility because of the visas for which he has applied.
The Tribunal considered whether the applicant had a right to enter and reside in a third country (at [42]). In this regard, the Tribunal summarised various country information sources relating to the European Union and European Economic Area (at [43]-[46]).
The Tribunal then explained that:
47.The Tribunal put it to the applicant that as Romania was a member country of EU, it appears that he has the right to enter and reside elsewhere in Europe, in which case Australia would not have protection obligat1ions to him. The applicant said that he has not lived in, resided in or visited any other countries in Europe apart from Romania. He said that in terms of security if he was in another European country, it would be easier for them to arrest them. However the applicant did not give any evidence that would explain why security forces in another European country would have a reason to arrest him. The Tribunal finds that the applicant does have the right to enter and reside in the EU countries plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway and does not find it credible on the evidence before it that security agencies in these other countries have any adverse interest in the applicant.
The Tribunal referred to the fact that the applicant had claimed that Romania was a corrupt country, that there had been recent protests and that more people have left Romania than any other country (bar Syria) (at [48]-[49]). The Tribunal then referred to country information relevant to the matters outlined by the applicant (at [49]-[50]).
The Tribunal accepted the applicant’s claim that he had attended protests and demonstrations and that he was a human rights activist (at [51]-[53]). The Tribunal referred to the applicant’s evidence that those friends and colleagues who were in the same group as the applicant at university had difficulty finishing their degrees (at [54]). However, the Tribunal also noted that the applicant had completed his degree and that his evidence was that he had only heard of people being placed in jail (at [54]-[55]).
When asked if anything specific had happened to him, the applicant said that his mother was visited by police several times and threatened with being put in jail or losing her pension (at [56]). However, the applicant confirmed that his mother was currently “ok”. After the applicant left Romania, the police continued visiting his mother but this stopped after two or three years (at [57]). The applicant stated that he believed the police had issued an arrest warrant for him and that the only reason he was not arrested was because “he ran as fast as he could” (at [58]).
The Tribunal outlined the applicant’s evidence about the fact that he took part in protests since he was a student in 2008 and his evidence that these protests continued after he was no longer a student (at [59]). He indicated that he took part in street protests and was a part of the Liberal Party (at [60]). Further, he claimed that the police would come to the university campus and intimidate or accuse people and that he experienced this every two months (or so) during the last three years that he remained in Romania (at [61]-[62]). The applicant claimed that the intimidation he experienced escalated and during street protests people would be hit by police and arrested straight away (at [64]).
The Tribunal noted that it was unclear when the applicant was giving evidence whether he was talking about what happened to people in general or if he was speaking about his personal experiences (at [65]).
When asked about matters he had personally experienced, the applicant stated that:
a)he was beaten, taken by the police and held overnight in May or June 2010 (at [66]);
b)he attended a protest in Cluj with hundreds of others which continued on into the night. The protest was peaceful and had prior approval. When night came, the police started to use force (including tear gas and a water cannon) and the police were hitting people with batons. The applicant ran away. His friends, who were arrested, gave the police his name (at [67]);
c)he himself was arrested at a street demonstration in Cluj held outside a government building. There were between 20 and 50 students demonstrating in front of the building. The police came and arrested about 20 people (at [68]). Those arrested were put into police vehicles and taken to the police station where the police tried to intimidate them (at [69]). The police spoke to the demonstrators individually and accused the applicant of working for foreign countries and told him they had a file on him (at [70]). He was held overnight and was told that he would be put behind bars for ten years. He was released the next day (at [71]); and
d)he was not physically injured but was pushed and a police officer had a baton and was banging it on the table to intimidate him – but he did not hit him (at [72]). This was the most extreme thing that had happened to the applicant. However, he had been in street demonstrations when police were hitting people at random and he was hit and sustained bruises (at [74]).
The Tribunal then put to the applicant that the evidence that he had provided to the Tribunal differed from the evidence he had provided to the delegate (at [75]-[77]). The applicant indicated that he could not recall much about the delegate’s interview (at [78]).
The Tribunal stated:
79. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant was being honest in giving his evidence because he made claims during the hearing which he had not raised previously, as follows:
• The police visited his mother several times to intimidate her and this continued for two or three years after he left Romania.
• He was part of a group of students who were speaking to other students about politics.
• Every two months or so in the last three years he was in Romania and had become more involved in politics, the police spoke with him to intimidate him.
• He was beaten, taken by the police and held overnight, and that this happened in May or June 2010 before he graduated.
80. The Tribunal considers these to be significant incidents for a person claiming protection and while it is a possible a person may have forgotten to raise one of them, to have failed to raise all four when making a claim for protection (in the initial claim form and during the delegate’s interview) raises significant questions about a person’s credibility. It suggests that the applicant was embellishing his claims to strengthen his overall claim for protection. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant was honest when giving his evidence and finds that he embellished and/or fabricated his claims to strengthen his case.
The Tribunal accepted that the applicant had attended demonstrations when he was in Romania, that he was a human rights activist, that he belonged to a political party and that corruption remains an issue in Romania (at [81]). However, the Tribunal did not accept that the applicant was beaten by the police or held overnight, that he was spoken to by the police every two months or that the police intimidated his mother (at [82]).
The Tribunal explained that, despite it being more than eight years since he departed Romania, the applicant indicated that the same political party was still in power (at [83]-[85]). He referred to the same corrupt system existing (at [85]) and the Tribunal accepted that protests continue to occur (at [86]).
The Tribunal then stated:
87. The applicant said that he was not claiming he was on a “most wanted” list but he knows that the authorities have a file on him. He said that other students were arrested and he was not as he ran away. He said that they went to see his mother, and they knew enough about him to know where he had been living. The Tribunal accepts that the police went to see his mother once or twice but, as recorded above, it does not accept that the police visited his mother several times and tried to intimidate her.
88. The Tribunal put it to the applicant that around the time he left Romania, in 2010, there were widespread demonstrations across Europe, because of austerity. The applicant said that the Romanian government responded differently to those countries. The Tribunal put it to the applicant that it had been unable to locate country information that indicated a person who had participated in demonstrations in 2010 would be of interest to Romanian authorities now. The applicant said that nothing had changed in Romania as far as the political situation was concerned.
89. The applicant said that he had no corroborating evidence that authorities were still interested in him, such as an arrest warrant. The Tribunal acknowledges the difficulty for, if not the impossibility of, the applicant obtaining the copy of an arrest warrant or other corroborating evidence of the authorities’ interest in him at this point in time. However the Tribunal has doubts as to the applicant’s credibility with reference to a number of his claims as already set out and it does not accept that Romanian authorities hold any interest in him now, nearly nine years after he left Romania. As he acknowledged, he was not someone with a significant profile.
The Tribunal noted that the applicant was able to continue his studies in Romania and graduate and that he had left the country without difficulty (at [90]). It referred to the applicant’s evidence that he has not been politically active in Australia and has no interest in being politically active.
The Tribunal found that if the applicant returned to Romania he would not participate in any political activities or otherwise express his views (at [92]).
The Tribunal alternatively found that in the event the applicant did express his political opinion, the country information did not indicate that this was problematic or would attract adverse attention from the authorities in Romania (at [93]).
The Tribunal did not accept that the Romanian authorities or anyone else in Romania was interested in the applicant because of his political activities and because he had participated in demonstrations. The Tribunal did not accept that the applicant would be at risk of arrest or physical harm if he was to return to Romania or to another European country (at [94]-[95]).
The Tribunal concluded as follows:
96. The Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have a well-founded of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion in his home country. The Tribunal finds there are no grounds for believing that there is a real risk the applicant would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country.
97. Further the Tribunal has already found that the applicant has the right to enter and reside in other EU and EEA countries, specifically Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway, and has not taken any steps to avail himself of that right.
98. The Tribunal has perused country information pertaining to each of Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, and is satisfied that the exceptions set out in s.36(4), 36(5) and 36(5A) do not apply in this case and Australia has no protection obligations towards the applicant.
The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant was a person owed protection as he did not meet s.36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Act (at [99]-[101]).
The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the visa (at [102]).
Proceedings in this Court
The applicant’s application for judicial filed on 7 August 2019 provides one ground of review, as follows:
The assessment was unfair because AAT didn’t give enough importance to some evidence.
(Without alteration)
The applicant was given an opportunity to provide an amended application, any supporting affidavits and an outline of submissions. No further materials were provided.
The materials before the Court are thus limited to the judicial review application, correspondence confirming service of the Court Book and the Minister’s written submissions (marked as Exhibit 1), a Court Book numbering 124 pages (marked as Exhibit 2) and an outline of submissions filed by the Minister on 28 July 2020.
At the hearing of this matter, the Court confirmed with the applicant that he had received a copy of the Court Book and the written submissions.
The applicant appeared without legal representation. Noting recent remarks in DQQ17 v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2018] FCA 784 at [8] that an unrepresented applicant should be given an opportunity to orally explain what they believe the Tribunal “did wrong”, the Court invited the applicant to outline what “mistakes” he thought the Tribunal had made.
To assist the applicant, the Court explained that this Court can only turn its attention to the issue of jurisdictional error. It explained that the possible categories of jurisdictional error are not exhaustive and sometimes overlap. For decisions of this sort, however, they most commonly include (but are not limited to) the following categories:
a)where the decision-maker identifies the wrong issue or asks the wrong question: Craig v State of South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163 (“Craig”) at 198;
b)where the decision-maker ignores relevant material: Craig at 198;
c)where the decision-maker relies on irrelevant material: Craig at 198;
d)where the decision-maker fails to consider a “claim” or a relevant “integer” of a claim: Htun v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (2001) 194 ALR 244 at [42];
e)where the decision-maker fails to follow mandatory procedures: SAAP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs & Anor (2005) 228 CLR 294 at [207]-[208];
f)where the decision-maker shows actual or apprehended bias: SZRUI v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs & Citizenship [2013] FCAFC 80 at [2]; and
g)where the decision is illogical, irrational or unreasonable: Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611 at [131]; Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332 at [26]-[28]; Minister for Immigration & Border Protection v Singh (2014) 231 FCR 437 at [44].
It was also explained that this Court cannot review the merits of the Tribunal’s decision or grant him the visa he seeks. Rather, the role of the Court is restricted to determining if the Tribunal made a material error in arriving at the decision it arrived at: Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 272.
Against this background, the applicant stated that the Tribunal advised him that the fact that the applicant is from Romania does not put him in a category to be granted a protection visa. The applicant stated that there are hundreds of Romanians in Australia on protection visas.
The applicant said that he felt that the Tribunal’s decision was “already in its head” and it did not matter what evidence he provided. The applicant indicated that he had a “sense” that this was the case. This appears to be an allegation of bias, which the Court will address below.
Consideration
Ground of Review
The applicant’s sole ground of review states that the Tribunal did not give enough “importance” to some evidence. Unfortunately, the applicant has not particularised what “evidence” he is referring to.
Here, the evidence that the applicant provided to the Tribunal was minimal. The only relevant evidence before the Tribunal was in the form of oral evidence that the applicant provided during the interview with the delegate (at [23]-[29]), the delegate’s decision, the information contained in the visa application and oral evidence provided at the hearing before the Tribunal ([39]-[41], [48]-[49], [51], [54]-[78], [83]-[85] and [87]-[89]).
The Tribunal clearly had regard to this evidence as it noted inconsistencies between details and substantial inclusions or additions that had been made in the applicant’s oral evidence to the Tribunal. This caused the Tribunal to have credibility concerns which, given the extent of these inclusions and the inconsistencies, were justified.
The Tribunal also relied on various country information sources (at [43]-[46], [49]-[50], [81], [88] and [93]). Those country information sources were, in some aspects, favourable to the applicant. The Tribunal accepted the applicant’s assertions concerning corruption and the fact that protests occur and expressly noted that this was supported by the country information.
The Tribunal considered all of the evidence and supporting material before it when determining whether the applicant met the criterion to be granted the visa. There is nothing before the Court suggesting that the Tribunal did not “give importance to some evidence”.
Further, it is well accepted that it is a matter for the Tribunal to determine whether to accept or reject evidence and what weight to put on that evidence: Lee v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 464 at [27]. It is also well accepted that it is a matter for the Tribunal to determine what weight it gives to the country information: NAHI v Minister for Immigration & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 10 at [11].
The applicant’s sole ground of does nothing more than express disagreement with the Tribunal’s conclusion. It fails to identify jurisdictional error. The Tribunal considered all of the evidence and information before it and appropriately assessed and weighed that evidence and information in order to determine if the applicant could be granted the visa.
The sole ground of review is, accordingly, dismissed.
Applicant’s Oral Submissions - Bias
In relation to any concerns about bias, it is well settled that an allegation of bias is one that must be distinctly made and clearly proven. To prove bias, it is for the applicant to establish that:
a)the Tribunal, in the case of actual bias, was so committed to a conclusion that regardless of the evidence or arguments presented that conclusion was not open to persuasion and incapable of alteration: Minister for Immigration v Jia Legeng (2001) 178 ALR 421 at [71]-[72]; or
b)the Tribunal, in the case of apprehended bias, conducted itself in a way that a fair-minded person would reasonably believe that the Tribunal had not brought an impartial mind to deciding the applicant’s case: SZRUI at [2].
At the hearing, the applicant submitted that the Tribunal had advised him that he was in a category of persons (as a Romanian) who could not be granted a protection visa. There is no evidence before the Court that this statement was made by the Tribunal.
To the extent that the applicant’s submissions relate to the finding made under s.36(3) of the Act that, as a Romanian, he had a right to reside in another country, the Tribunal was not biased in relation to this finding. The Tribunal’s finding was based on country information. More importantly, the Tribunal did seek evidence from the applicant about why he had not been able to enter the other countries he had a right to live in and noted that the applicant did not give any evidence about why security forces in other European countries would arrest him (at [47]).
The Tribunal was not biased. It invited the applicant to give evidence about why he could not reside in a third country. The approach taken is clear. This shows that it was impartial and open minded.
To the extent the applicant indicated that there were “hundreds” of Romanians on protection visas, there is no evidence to support this. Further, the Tribunal was required to individually assess the applicant’s circumstances. Whether other Romanians had been granted protection visas was irrelevant and certainly does not demonstrate bias.
Finally, the applicant explained to the Court that he had “a sense” that the Tribunal was biased. That may well be what the applicant thinks. Unfortunately, there is no evidence to support the concern raised.
There is nothing in the materials before the Court to suggest that the Tribunal had a closed mind or approached its task subjectively. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant had participated in political activities and found that some of the information he provided was supported by country information.
The applicant’s oral submissions do not identify jurisdictional error.
Conclusion
The applicant’s sole ground of review has failed to identify any jurisdictional error. The Court is otherwise satisfied that no jurisdictional error arises on the face of the Tribunal’s decision.
The application is, accordingly, dismissed.
I certify that the preceding seventy-one (71) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Kendall
Associate:
Date: 14 August 2020
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Immigration
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Natural Justice
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Jurisdiction
0
15
2