FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| DGK16 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2019] FCCA 1462 |
| Catchwords: MIGRATION – Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – application for judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirming a decision of a Delegate of the Minister for Immigration to refuse a Protection visa based on the Applicant’s fear of harm in China for religious reasons – Administrative Appeals Tribunal did not believe applicant and made adverse credibility findings – applicant claimed denial of procedural fairness and legal unreasonableness constituting jurisdictional error affected the adverse decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal- Grounds not made out – no jurisdictional error – application for judicial review dismissed. |
| Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.36, 137J, 424, 424A, 425 |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION |
| Second Respondent: | ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 3009 of 2016 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Dowdy |
| Hearing date: | 10 May 2018 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 30 May 2018 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 31 May 2019 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr N. Dobbie |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Dobbie and Devine Immigration Lawyers Pty Ltd |
| Counsel for the First Respondent: | Mr J. Kay-Hoyle of Counsel |
| Solicitors for the First Respondent: | HWL Ebsworth |
THE ORDERS OF THE COURT ARE AS FOLLOWS:
The Amended Application filed in this Court on 27 February 2017 is dismissed.
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 3009 of 2016
| DGK16 |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION |
First Respondent
| ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
The Applicant in this proceeding is a male citizen of China aged 26 years, having been born on 22 November 1992.
By Amended Application filed in…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read DGK16 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.
- Case
- [2019] FCCA 1462
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicant contended that the AAT's decision involved jurisdictional error, specifically alleging a denial of procedural fairness and that the decision was legally unreasonable. The court was required to determine whether these grounds were made out and, if so, whether they vitiated the AAT's decision. The core of the dispute revolved around the AAT's assessment of the applicant's credibility and the legal sufficiency of its findings in relation to the criteria for a protection visa.
Dowdy J dismissed the application for judicial review, finding no jurisdictional error. The court noted that for a protection visa to be granted, the Minister must be satisfied that the applicant meets either the Refugee Criterion (s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)) or the Complementary Protection Criterion (s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)). The Refugee Criterion requires a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion, among other grounds, while the Complementary Protection Criterion requires substantial grounds for believing there is a real risk of significant harm upon removal. The court acknowledged the historical context of the persecution of Yi-Guan-Dao practitioners in China, as outlined in the Delegate's decision, but ultimately found that the applicant's claims did not establish a denial of procedural fairness or legal unreasonableness on the part of the AAT.
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
The Applicant’s Protection visa application also included a statutory declaration dated 11 April 2016 made by Sister Alice (but in reality more a written statement than technically a statutory declaration) which stated that she was “a clergy of JiRu Buddhist Temple” and that the Applicant was “a pious Tian Dao Cultivator” and proselytiser. There were also submitted at the same time two further statutory declarations which spoke of the Applicant’s connection with the JiRu temple and of him being an actively involved practitioner of Yi-Guan-Dao at the JiRu temple (collectively, statutory declarations). A convenient summary of the relevant grounds and criteria for the grant of the Protection visa in this proceeding can be found in the judgment of Charlesworth J in AWA15 v Minister for Immigration [2018] FCA 604 at [5] – [7] as follows:[5] The Minister is to grant a visa if satisfied that the visa applicant satisfies the relevant criteria. If the Minister is not so satisfied, he must refuse to grant the visa: s 65(1) of the Act. For the appellant to qualify for the grant of a protection visa it was necessary for the Minister to be satisfied that (among other things) the appellant fulfilled either the criterion in s 36(2)(a) of the Act (Refugee Criterion) or the criterion in s 36(2)(aa) of the Act (Complementary Protection Criterion).[6]The Refugee Criterion requires that the Minister be satisfied that the visa applicant is a non-citizen in Australia to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention, as amended by the Refugees Protocol, namely a person who:... owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.[7]Relevantly, the Complementary Protection Criterion requires that the visa applicant be a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because:... the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; .... The Applicant attended an interview with the Delegate on 30 June 2016 together with his migration agent. I note that at the hearing in this Court it was agreed by Mr Dobbie, who appeared for the Applicant, and Mr Kay-Hoyle of Counsel, who appeared for the Minister, that the following paragraph from the Decision Record of the Delegate sufficiently set forth for present purposes the relevant facts concerning the Yi-Guan-Dao religion:In 1950, [Yi-Guan-Dao] was branded and vilified as a cult by the Chinese Communist Party. In October 1950, the Chinese Communist Party proclaimed that [Yi-Guan-Dao] was a reactionary religious organisation with the intent to overthrow the new government. A public campaign was staged to disband and crack down on [Yi-Guan-Dao] practitioners. Numerous senior [Yi-Guan-Dao] members were sentenced to death without a trial taking place. Ordinary [Yi-Guan-Dao] members were sentenced to fixed term imprisonment of not then less than three years. By the end of 1952, a total of 2.4 million [Yi-Guan-Dao] cultivators were supressed. Currently [Yi-Guan-Dao] is identified as a reactionary sect using feudalism and superstition to subvert the government.