DGC24 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

[2024] FedCFamC2G 1196

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 2)

DGC24 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FedCFamC2G 1196  

File number:

PEG 186 of 2024

Judgment of:

JUDGE D HUMPHREYS

Date of judgment:

15 November 2024

Catchwords:

MIGRATION – Administrative Appeals Tribunal – protection visa (class XA) (subclass 866) – credibility - where the Tribunal drew a proper and law inference – where there was a detailed and careful consideration of the evidence – no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed.   

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 5J, 5J(1)(a) 36(2)(a), 36(2)(aa), 116, 423A, 424A.

Cases cited:

Abebe v Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 197 CLR 510

ABT17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2020] HCA 34

CNY17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2019) 268 CLR 76

Djokovic v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 3

Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Lay Lat (2006) 151 FCR 214

Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs (2022) 275 CLR 582

Randhawa v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 52 FCR 437

Selvadurai v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 34 ALD 347

Division:

Division 2 General Federal Law

Number of paragraphs:

64

Date of hearing:

5 November 2024

Place:

Perth

Counsel for the Applicant:

Self-represented litigant

Counsel for the First Respondent:

Mr Beetham

Solicitor for the First Respondent:

Ms Ismailjee (Sparke Helmore)

Solicitor for the Second Respondent:

Submitting appearance, save as to costs.

ORDERS

PEG 186 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

DGC24

Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE D HUMPHREYS
DATE OF ORDER:	15 NOVEMBER 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application is dismissed

2.The Applicant is to pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $6,500.00.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

JUDGE D HUMPHREYS

INTRODUCTION

1. This is an application for judicial review of a decision made by the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“Tribunal”) on 29 April 2024. The Tribunal affirmed the decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs (“delegate”) to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection (class XA) (subclass 866) visa (“protection visa”).

   BACKGROUND

2. The applicant is a male citizen of India who first arrived in Australia on 24 September 2015. The applicant was a dependent visa holder to his wife’s Student (class TU) (subclass 573) visa. 

3. He was married in 2014 and has one child born in April 2018. He has been separated from his wife since 6 June 2019 and told the Tribunal that has not been in contact with his wife and child since this time.

4. The applicant was granted a subclass 485 visa on 29 June 2018 on account of being in the family unit of his wife who was the primary visa holder. This visa was granted for a period of two years until 29 June 2020.

5. On 19 July 2021, he was convicted of serious domestic violence related offences perpetrated against his wife and child. He was sentenced to imprisonment for each offence to be served concurrently for 12 months in the Perth District Court.

6. On 8 March 2022, his Temporary Graduate (subclass 485) visa was cancelled by a delegate under s 116 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”). The applicant applied to have the decision reviewed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal affirmed the visa cancellation on 2 August 2022.

7. On 16 June 2023, the applicant applied for the protection visa. Other than identity documents, the applicant did not submit any documents to the Department of Home Affairs (“Department”) in support of his application.

8. On 21 June 2023, the Department requested additional information from the applicant in support of his claims. No response was received. The applicant was not interviewed by the Department with respect to his protection visa application.

9. On 3 July 2023 a delegate refused the application as neither s 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Act were met.

10. On 4 July 2023, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate’s decision. His hearing was adjourned multiple times for a number of reasons, including to allow the applicant to obtain further evidence. A total of four hearings were held in October, November, and December of 2023 and January 2024. All hearings were conducted with the assistance of an interpreter who spoke the Punjabi language.

11. On 2 January 2024, the Tribunal sent the applicant an invitation pursuant to s 424A of the Act to comment or respond to information concerning his criminal record, marriage and the late raising of claims for protection. The applicant responded to the information at the hearing in January 2024.

12. The applicant was not represented when the application was before the delegate or at the Tribunal for the decision currently under review.

13. On 29 April 2024, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision. It is this decision for which the applicant seeks judicial review.

    ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION

14. The Tribunal decision record is 38 pages long consisting of 229 paragraphs. It is a detailed and comprehensive document that takes considerable care to discuss all the evidence as well as each and every aspect of the applicant’s claims.

15. At issue in the Tribunal’s review was whether there is a real chance that, if the applicant returns to India, he will be persecuted for one or more of the five reasons set out in s 5J(1)(a) for the purpose of s 36(2)(a) of the Act. If not, the Tribunal also had to consider whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of him being removed from Australia to India, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm for the purpose of s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.

16. Throughout the decision, the Tribunal considered in some detail country information by the Department of Foreign and Affairs and Trade (DFAT), particularly the DFAT Country Information Report for India dated 29 September 2023.

17. The applicant provided written submissions on 14 November 2023 which summarised his claims. The Tribunal quoted at [34] the claims and ‘bolded part of the claim’ that was either not included in the claims made or reasons for seeking protection given in the initial application for protection, or given to the Department at any point prior to the delegate’s decision. The summary was as follows:

    1)The applicant raised the following reasons to the Department when submitting his protection application:

    a)   The applicant left his country because his life was threatened by his in-laws and by his father.

    b)   The applicant received threats from his in-laws because he married their daughter while being from a lower caste (Inter Caste marriage) and him being bisexual. He also fear for his father for being bisexual and seeing him parasite and blotch to society and culture.

    c)   The applicant approached the local authorities for assistance; however, they did not help him, and instead they harassed and pressured him to divorce his wife of his reasons of being from lower caste.

    d)   The applicant escaped to New Delhi to seek safety but the Indian police arrested, beat and tortured him. The applicant’s friend bribed the police to secure his release while the applicant’s wife sought refuge at her friend’s house.

    e)   If he returns to India, he will be harassed, tortured and killed by his wife’s family and his father.

    f)   The applicant’s in-laws are well-connected, and will inflict harm on the applicant due to police involving.

    2)The applicant wishes to include new claims for his protection application, and he wants to discuss both the previous and new grounds together. The new grounds are related to his background and the journey to Australia.

    a)   The person applying is a Sikh man who is also a bisexual. He was always afraid and embarrassed to tell anyone about his sexuality while he was in a detention center because he was concern about his safety and bullying. He only told two other detainees whom he trusted, and they supported him in bringing up this matter in front of the AAT (Administrative Appeals Tribunal).

    b)   The applicant has made another new claim, stating that he is a strong political view and support of Khalistan which is separate country. He believes that if he returns to India, the government there will persecute him for his strong political opinion.

    (errors and emphasis in original)

18. The Tribunal considered, as discussed with the applicant at the hearing, s 423A applied to the claims in bold and the ‘new claims’ detailed in (2). The Tribunal provided information on the particulars of the applicant’s claimed background detailed at [94] and the late raising of his claims for protection. The Tribunal also provided information and documents which included:

    ·A copy of the transcript for proceedings at the Perth District Court in 2021.

    ·A copy of the applicant’s marriage certificate.

    ·A copy of the wedding photographs submitted with the student visa application.

    ·A copy of the applicant’s and his wife’s student visa application.

    ·A copy of the decision record for the applicant’s visa cancellation review.

19. The Tribunal indicated the information was relevant due to inconsistencies in the evidence the applicant had provided to the Tribunal and information in prior visa applications, previous Tribunal proceedings, and Court processes. The Tribunal stated that such inconsistencies may lead it to doubt the truthfulness of the applicant’s evidence and claims of fear of harm due to having entered into an inter-caste marriage and being estranged from his parents on account of identifying as gay or bisexual at school.  It also noted that the inconsistencies may lead the Tribunal to consider his claims lack credibility.

20. The Tribunal also stated it may have concerns about the credibility of claims that were raised late which may lead to them not being accepted. The claims that the applicant had not raised included a fear of harm on the basis of an interfaith marriage, bisexuality, links to the Khalistan movement or being Sikh in the context of consideration of the cancellation of his visa or in the context of reports prepared during his trial and sentencing for his criminal offences.

21. The Tribunal also noted it may not accept that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution if he returns to India or that there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia due to being in an inter-caste marriage, due to being a bisexual or for any other of the reasons claimed.

22. The Tribunal noted that if it accepted this information, this would be the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review.

23. Pursuant to s 424A of the Act, the applicant was invited to comment or respond to the abovementioned information which it considered would be the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review.

    Findings

24. The Tribunal found that the applicant is a citizen of India, which was also the receiving country for the purposes of the refugee and complementary protection assessments.

25. Due to the concerns listed below (extracted from [129]) and considered cumulatively, the Tribunal did not accept the applicant’s core claims:

    ·The late raising of claims with respect to bisexuality, political beliefs associated with the Khalistan separatist movement, mental health and religion as a Sikh.

    ·Inconsistencies in the evidence from the applicant and Mr Pal Singh concerning the timeline of the relationship and their personal circumstances.

    ·The fact there was no mention of the relationship between Mr Pal Singh and the applicant and their interactions with the applicant’s in-laws in material relating to the applicant’s conviction.

    ·The fact the applicant’s account of events leading to his conviction and his personal background were inconsistent with the account and history documented in material relating to the applicant’s conviction, including the sentencing remarks.

    ·Inconsistent and implausible evidence regarding the background to the applicant’s marriage and the fact his account is not supported in material relating to his and his wife’s student visa application or in the material relating to his conviction.

    ·The fact none of these claims, including those associated with inter-caste marriage were raised in earlier proceedings considering non-refoulement issues (where it is reasonable to expect such claims would be raised by the applicant).

    ·The lack of any satisfactory explanation from the applicant to address or allay these concerns when raised by the Tribunal.

26. At [146] the Tribunal did not accept that the applicant and his wife were in an inter-caste marriage which they entered into without the consent of their parents or that the applicant is at risk of serious or significant harm from his family, his in-laws or wife’s extended family on return to India on that basis. The Tribunal found at [162] the applicant does not face a real chance of harm on the basis of having entered into an inter-caste marriage against the wishes of his parents or in-laws should he return to India now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.

27. The Tribunal found at [151] the applicant was not arrested in New Delhi and beaten by police as a result of having entered into an inter-caste marriage or for any other reason. Further, the Tribunal did not accept he was arrested in his village due to being in an inter-caste marriage. The Tribunal also did not accept he was arrested and beaten by police as a result of a bisexual relationship at school or due to concerns with his sexuality at school.

28. The Tribunal did not accept at [167] the applicant faces a risk from his family or from his in-laws on the basis of him being in a same-sex relationship. The Tribunal noted there was no credible evidence that corroborated a claim that either family were aware of the relationship.

29. The Tribunal did not accept at [174], the applicant’s claims of being bisexual to be credible. This was on account of his evidence and concerns about the credibility of a witness who claims to have been in a same-sex relationship with the applicant. It found the applicant is not bisexual and faces no real chance of harm on this basis on return to India from his family, his in-laws, the Indian authorities or any other person.

30. The Tribunal drew an adverse inference from the late raising of the applicant’s claim about his support of a Khalistan separatist movement at [183]. The Tribunal considered the applicant does not have a genuine subjective fear of harm in India as an actual or imputed Khalistan separatist. Given the lack of evidence to support these claims and overall concerns regarding the credibility of late claims raised by the applicant, the Tribunal did not accept the applicant is, or would be imputed to be, a Khalistan separatist. It found that he does not face a real chance of harm on this basis on return to India now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.

31. The Tribunal accepted the applicant would be identified as a Sikh in India at [190]. The applicant did not claim to have suffered harm in the past based on his Sikh religion in India. The Tribunal considered high-profile Sikh supporters of Sikh political movements, in particular the Khalistan separatist movement, may face an elevated risk of harm. However, the applicant did not provide any credible evidence that he had any such profile. There was no information before the Tribunal to suggest the applicant would be imputed with such a profile on return to India now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. This claim had not been raised until the proceedings before the Tribunal and no explanation was provided for the late raising of the claim. At [191], The Tribunal drew an adverse inference from the late raising of the claim and considered the applicant does not have a genuine subjective fear of harm in India as a Sikh. Further, the Tribunal considered based on the relevant country information that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm on the basis of his Sikh faith in India.

32. The Tribunal accepted on the evidence at [196] the applicant suffers or has suffered from depression, anxiety and an ‘adjustment disorder’. The available medical report before the Tribunal in July 2023 indicated the applicant was not exhibiting signs of significant depression. Notwithstanding the recent assessments, the Tribunal accepted the applicant’s return may cause him anxiety and may lead to depression. The Tribunal found at [198] on available country information that the applicant would not be denied access to mental health services in India for any essential and significant reason arising under s 5J of the Act. Rather, this may result from inadequate or less well funded public resourcing of health care services in India. According, the applicant’s lack of access to such services would not meet the requirements of s 5J of the Act. The Tribunal did not accept the applicant faces a real chance of serious or significant harm for any of the reasons claimed associated with his mental health now or in the reasonably foreseeable future on return to India.

33. To the extent the applicant’s submission raised a claim to fear harm as a member of a particular social group of an ‘otherwise backwards class’, the Tribunal did not accept at [204] that the applicant is a member of such a caste. The Tribunal also did not accept he has or would face a real chance of harm on this basis on return to India from Indian authorities or any other person now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.

34. The Tribunal was not satisfied at [211] the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for any of the reasons set out in the Act.

35. The Tribunal also considered the application of s 36(2)(aa) to the applicant’s circumstances. It found at [224] the applicant’s return to India does not give rise to a necessary and foreseeable risk of significant harm for the purposes of s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.

36. At [228], the Tribunal noted there was no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s 36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Therefore, the applicant did not satisfy any of the criteria in s 36(2).

    GROUNDS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

37. The grounds of judicial review are contained in the Originating Application filed on 4 June 2024. They are reproduced in full as follows (verbatim):

    1.Failure to consider evidence. The tribunal error is not accepting the appeal and claims of being khalistan supporter and facing threat from Indian government. The applicant provide substantial evidence to support this claim including documentation. The tribunal failure to consider the evidence

    2.Failure to consider risk of harm. The tribunal failed to properly consider the appealing claim or facing threat from their ex in laws in India due to an inter caste marriage. The appellant Provide compelling evidence of the risk they would face if I were to return to India including testimonies and real documentation. The tribunal dismissal Of this evidence has put appellant At risk of serious harm if they I’m deported back to India .

    3.Error in decision making process. The appellant is not satisfied with the decisionmaking process of the tribunal and believes that their case was not adequately considered. The tribunal decision did not sufficiently address the appellants Claims and failed to provide adequate Reasons for rejection the evidence presented. 

    THE APPLICANT’S SUBMISSIONS

1. The applicant appeared before the Court unrepresented.  He was assisted by an interpreter.  Prior to the hearing commencing, the Court ensured that the applicant was in possession of a copy of the relevant Court books and that the first respondent’s written submissions had been translated to him.  The Court also ensured the applicant had access to a pen and paper so he could take notes during the course of the hearing should he so wished to.

2. At the commencement of the hearing, the Court explained it was undertaking judicial review, not merits review and the difference between the two types of review.  The Court also explained the procedure by which the hearing would be undertaken.

3. Despite Court orders, no written submissions or other material was provided to the Court by the applicant in support of his case.  The applicant told the Court that in relation to ground one, the Tribunal wanted proofs, but they did not give the applicant time to obtain the necessary evidence. The applicant stated he told the Tribunal about his in-laws trying to harm him.

4. At the conclusion of the respondent’s oral submissions, the applicant was asked if he wished to state anything in reply.  He answered that he had dealt with the issue of time, the Tribunal did not give him the time and as a result he did not have much of a chance.

   THE FIRST RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS

5. Ground one does not succeed because the applicant failed to provide the Tribunal with evidence in support of his claim, of being a Khalistan supporter, for it to consider. The claim was made in submissions to the Tribunal of 14 November 2024 (CB 25(a), [115] – [118]) but was not supported. The Tribunal’s conclusion, that the applicant had not offered “any evidence to corroborate any support for or involvement with Khalistan separatists, formally or informally” (CB 60(a), [175], p 1093), was correct. There is no error.

6. Ground two does not succeed because the Tribunal read, identified, understood and evaluated the applicant’s claim that he faced harm from his in-laws because of his inter-caste marriage (CB 60(a), [145]-[162], p 1088-1091). The Tribunal discharged what was required of it citing Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs (2022) 275 CLR 582 [24] (Kiefel CJ, Keane, Gordon and Steward JJ)) (“Plaintiff M1/2021”).

7. Ground three, in its present form, is not sufficiently particularised as to permit an understanding of the essential complaint. But, at the level of generality in which it is presently expressed, it too does not succeed because the Tribunal’s reasons reveal that it considered the applicant’s claims and gave 229 paragraphs of comprehensive reasons for the conclusions it reached.

8. If the applicant’s grounds incorporate a complaint that the Tribunal reached a decision or asserted evidence in a manner with which the applicant disagrees, these are not grounds of review for jurisdictional error. Rather, they are complaints about weight and merits, which are matters for the Tribunal (Plaintiff M1/2021).

9. Consideration was given as to whether the application contained the type of error described by the High Court of Australia in CNY17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2019) 268 CLR 76 (“CNY17”), as to the Tribunal’s regard to the sentencing remarks of 19 July 2021 relating to the offences which led to the cancellation of the applicant’s subclass 485 visa on 8 March 2022.

10. CNY17 can be distinguished from the present case. The case of CNY17 concerned irrelevant material which involved prejudicial opinion and innuendo that the decision-making body was mandated to consider. The first respondent submitted the sentencing remarks of 19 July 2021 were not irrelevant to the Tribunal’s task in the present case. They contended some of the claims made by the applicant to the Tribunal were controverted by things which, according to the sentencing remarks, the applicant had told the sentencing judge. That information was relevant, as the Tribunal told the applicant, because it “may lead the Tribunal to doubt the truthfulness of your evidence…” (CB 48, p 976-978).

11. The first respondent submitted that the Tribunal did not err by considering the sentencing remarks of 19 July 2021.

    CONSIDERATION

12. In Djokovic v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 3 at [17] the task of a court conducting judicial review was described in this manner:

    … an application for judicial review is one in which the judicial branch of government reviews, by reference to legality or lawfulness, the decision or decisions of the Executive branch of government, here in the form of a decision of the Minister.  The Court does not consider the merits or wisdom the decision; nor does it remake the decision.  The task of the Court is to rule upon the lawfulness or legality the decision by reference to the complaints made about it.

13. It is well established that the Tribunal enjoys an advantage of fact to test the veracity of evidence given orally by observing the witness: Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22 at [41]; ABT17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2020] HCA 34 at [62].

14. It is well established that the Tribunal is not required to accept uncritically any and all claims made by an applicant: Randhawa v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 52 FCR 437 at [451].

15. Nor does the Tribunal have to possess rebutting evidence before holding that a particular assertion was not made out: Selvadurai v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 34 ALD 347 at [348].

16. It is for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal, being the relevant decision maker, that the applicant meets the criteria for being a refugee: Abebe v Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 197 CLR 510 at [187]. It was for the applicant to provide his evidence and arguments in sufficient detail to enable the Tribunal to reach the requisite state of satisfaction: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Lay Lat (2006) 151 FCR 214 at [76].

17. Further, the Tribunal is under no obligation to “afford every opportunity to an applicant for review to present his or her best possible case or improve upon the evidence”: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332 at [82].

18. The Court notes that in this particular matter, the applicant was granted the benefit of a number of adjournments to enable him to gather any evidence that he wished to present to the Tribunal for consideration. The Court does not accept the complaint that the applicant was not given sufficient time in order to present his case. What is clear is that the applicant’s case developed over time, with him making new claims as set out above, that ultimately led the Tribunal, for the reasons it gave, to doubt the applicant’s credibility and truthfulness. The Court is satisfied this was a finding that was open to the Tribunal on the basis of the evidence before and for the reasons it gave.

    Ground One

19. Ground one is a complaint that the Tribunal failed to consider evidence in relation to the applicant being a Khalistan supporter and as a result, facing a threat from the Indian government. This was a claim made in submissions to the Tribunal on 14 November but was not supported by evidence. The Tribunal’s consideration of this claim is covered in the decision record at [175] – [184]. Reference is made to country information, which acknowledges that Sikhs that advocate for an independent Khalistan may be subjected to harassment by police and targeted by authorities. The Tribunal was not prepared to accept that if the applicant was returned to India, he would give speeches and will be deemed as a result to be at risk in so doing. The Tribunal noted the applicant had not provided any evidence of his support for Khalistan separatism or groups promoting that cause.

20. At [183], the Tribunal noted that this claim was not raised until the initial hearing before the Tribunal and that no satisfactory reason was given as to why it was not raised before that time. The Court is satisfied that this was a proper and lawful inference to be drawn and affected the applicant’s credibility in relation to these claims. The Court is not satisfied that there was any failure to consider the evidence. In fact, there was a detailed and careful consideration of the evidence which led to the findings the Tribunal arrived at. Ground one has no merit.

    Ground Two

21. Ground two is a claim that the Tribunal failed to consider “risk of harm”. The Court is satisfied that the Tribunal comprehensively read, identified, understood and evaluated the applicant’s claim that he would face harm from his in-laws because of his inter-cast marriage. Again, there is a detailed consideration of these claims at [145] – [162] of the decision record. The Court is satisfied that the Tribunal properly considered these matters and the conclusions it reached were open to it on the evidence before it and for the reasons it gave. If anything, this ground merely represents vehement disagreement with the conclusions reached by the Tribunal and an invitation to the Court to engage in impermissible merits review. Ground two has no merit.

    Ground Three

22. Ground three is a generalised complaint alleging error in the decision-making process and a claim that the applicant’s case was not adequately considered. The applicant further claims that the Tribunal failed to provide adequate reasons for the rejection of the evidence presented. As to the latter point, the Court considers that the Tribunal engaged in a detailed and comprehensive consideration of the applicant’s claims and provided more than adequate reasons for the conclusions arrived at. Again, this ground merely takes issue with the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal which are not grounds for judicial review as they do not point to any jurisdictional error.

23. Quite properly, the respondent notes that it may be that the applicant is arguing that the Tribunal should not have taken into account the sentencing remarks of the Perth District Court, in considering his matter as this could be an error of the type identified by the Court in CNY17.

24. As pointed out by the Minister, that case can be distinguished from the present case, as the Court is satisfied that the sentencing remarks of the Perth District Court were not relevant to the consideration of the matter in that they contain information that had apparently been put to the Court during sentencing hearing that was inconsistent with the material put to the Tribunal. This material thus had direct relevance to the necessary task of the Tribunal in assessing the credibility of the applicant and thus the truthfulness of the claims he put forward in support of his claim for a protection visa

25. The Court is not satisfied that there was any error of the CNY17 type in this case.

    DETERMINATION

26. As the applicant is unrepresented, the Court has perused the Tribunal decision record and supporting documentation. The Court is unable to ascertain any other unarticulated jurisdictional error.

27. In these circumstances, the application must be dismissed.

I certify that the preceding sixty-four (64) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge D Humphreys.

Associate:

Dated:       15 November 2024