DDY17 v Minister for Home Affairs

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DDY17 v Minister For Home Affairs [2019] FCA 165

Appeal from:	DDY17 v Minister for Immigration and Anor [2018] FCCA 2788
File number:	NSD 1652 of 2018
Judge:	LEE J
Date of judgment:	6 February 2019
Catchwords:	MIGRATION – whether credibility findings were reasonably open to the Tribunal on the material that was before it – whether Tribunal ought to have inferred that there was a real chance that the appellant may be persecuted on political grounds if he returns to the Republic of Indonesia – whether there was insufficient evidence for the Tribunal to make the finding it made – appeal dismissed
Legislation:	Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 36(2A), 36(2), 476
Date of hearing:	6 February 2019
Registry:	New South Wales
Division:	General Division
National Practice Area:	Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Category:	Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	15
Counsel for the Appellant:	The appellant appeared in person
Counsel for the First Respondent:	Ms J Strugnell
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Minter Ellison Lawyers
Counsel for the Second Respondent:	The second respondent entered a submitting appearance, save as to costs

ORDERS

NSD 1652 of 2018

BETWEEN:

DDY17

Appellant

AND:

MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

JUDGE:	LEE J
DATE OF ORDER:	6 FEBRUARY 2019

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed with costs.

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from the Transcript)

LEE J:

1. At [24] of the primary judge’s reasons, his Honour described the central question before the Court as being “whether the [second respondent’s (Tribunal)] finding in relation to the applicant’s credibility, and the findings that informed that ultimate finding, were reasonably open to the Tribunal on the material that was before it”. His Honour answered that question by noting that on the evidence before the Court and upon a review of the Tribunal’s reasons, its findings were reasonably open and accordingly, the primary judge dismissed the application that had been made by the appellant pursuant to s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act). 

2. In a notice of appeal filed in September last year, the appellant appeals the orders made by the primary judge.  The notice of appeal was filed within the required period and the only ground of appeal was expressed in the following way:

   The Court below made a jurisdictional error in dismissing the appeal from the [Tribunal] who (sic) failed to uphold the notion of procedural fairness in the process of making its decision in relation to his application for a protection visa.  This decision evidently constitutes a breach of natural justice.

3. “Particulars” were then provided beneath the ground of appeal, which advance the contention that the Tribunal lacked the evidence to make the findings it made and ought to have inferred that there was a real chance that the appellant may be persecuted on political grounds if he returns to his…