DSG18 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2025] FedCFamC2G 1319

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 2)

DSG18 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1319

File number(s):

MLG 2078 of 2018

Judgment of:

JUDGE CORBETT

Date of judgment:

19 August 2025

Catchwords:

MIGRATION – Protection (Class XA) (Subclass 866) visa - Application for judicial review –Related proceeding – Proceedings heard concurrently – Reliance on country information – Typographical errors – No jurisdictional error – Application dismissed.

Cases cited:

AWU15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCCA 496

Ahmad v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 200

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

Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259

Division:

Division 2 General Federal Law

Number of paragraphs:

18

Date of last submission/s:

11 June 2025

Date of hearing:

11 June 2025

Solicitor for the Applicant

The applicant appeared in person, self-represented

Counsel for the Respondents

Ms L Mills

Solicitor for the Respondents

Mills Oakley

ORDERS

MLG 2078 of 2018

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

DSG18

Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE CORBETT
DATE OF ORDER:	19 AUGUST 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The name of the first respondent is amended to ‘Minister for Immigration and Citizenship’;

2.The application for judicial review filed 18 July 2018 be dismissed; and

3.The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the proceeding fixed in the sum of $7,500.00.

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 CORBETT

1. In this proceeding the applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the second respondent (Tribunal) made 28 June 2018. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent (Minister) to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection (Class XA) (Subclass 866) visa (visa).

   BACKGROUND

2. The applicant in this proceeding is the husband of the first applicant in related proceeding MLG 2085 of 2018 (related proceeding) and the father of the second applicant in that proceeding. The wife has been given the pseudonym DSL18 in that proceeding and the daughter has been given the pseudonym DSN18.

3. This proceeding was heard concurrently with the related proceeding and the evidence in both proceedings was relied on in support of both applications for judicial review.

4. Reference in these reasons to ‘CB’ pages are references to the Court Book prepared for this proceeding that was tendered and admitted as evidence at the hearing and designated exhibit ‘R1’. The Court Book in the related proceeding was also tendered as evidence in this proceeding and references to evidence in that Court Book is footnoted where relevant.

5. It is not necessary in this proceeding to set out the procedural history of both proceedings as that has been done in the reasons for judgment published this day in the related proceeding. So too the submissions relied on by the applicant as to why the Tribunal allegedly erred in affirming the delegate’s decision.

   DISPOSITION

6. In the application for judicial review filed in this proceeding on 18 July 2018, the applicant identified four grounds of review. These grounds of review were the same as the grounds of review in the application for judicial review filed 18 July 2018 in the related proceeding.

7. Each of those grounds of review do not identify a material jurisdictional error in the decision of the Tribunal made 28 June 2018. The written decision record of the Tribunal made 28 June 2018 appears at CB 126–144 (Decision).

8. The Decision was made by the same member of the Tribunal that affirmed the delegate’s refusal to grant DSL18 and DSN18 a protection visa and on the same date.[1]

   [1]See also CB 158-174 of the Court Book filed in the related proceeding.

9. The Decision under review in this proceeding contains substantially the same findings of fact and conclusions reached in the decision under review in the related proceeding. There was one error in the Decision identified by DSG18 and DSL18 that was submitted to be of importance. That error appears at CB 134 at [34] of the Decision. In that paragraph, the Tribunal member erroneously referred to DSN18 by the wrong name. That was not a material or jurisdictional error by the Tribunal and does not require the Decision to be remitted to the Tribunal to be determined in accordance with law. Mere typographical or grammatical errors do not constitute jurisdictional error especially if the error is of ‘no moment’ (see AWU15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCCA 496 at [37]–[40] per Judge Lucev and Ahmad v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (No 2) [2018] FCAFC 200 at [30] per Bromwich J). In this case, the error was of no moment and when the Decision is read as a whole, the typographical error did not result in an erroneous finding of fact or law.

10. The grounds of review identified by DSG18 do not disclose material jurisdictional error in the Decision for the reasons explained in the reasons for judgment delivered in the related proceeding. The Decision discloses that the Tribunal applied the correct legal test, made findings of fact that were available on the limited evidence relied on by DSG18 and DSL18, and disclosed reasoning that was reasonable, logical and rational. It is not the function of this Court to reconsider the merits of the Decision (see Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 272 and Djokovic v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 3 at [17]).

11. In the Decision, the Tribunal did consider and gave weight to the claims made by DSG18 and DSL18 and their fear of persecution and serious harm but was not satisfied that those fears were well-founded within the meaning of the Act. Further, there were no substantial grounds for finding as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of DSG18 being removed from Australia to Malaysia, there is a real risk that DSG18 or the members of his immediate family (DSL18 and DSN18) will suffer significant harm. Those findings and conclusions were available on the evidence presented to the Tribunal and no jurisdictional error is apparent in the reasoning contained in the Decision or for the reasons identified in the grounds of review in the application for judicial review filed 18 July 2018.

12. The application for judicial review is dismissed.

    OTHER MATTERS

13. The Minister sought an order that the name of the first respondent be amended to ‘Minister for Immigration and Citizenship’, which is the current Ministerial title which changed on 13 May 2025. An order will be made to that effect.

    COSTS

14. Costs should follow the event. The Minister sought the costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application for judicial review in the sum of $8,371.30 in this proceeding and the related proceeding which is the scale amount for a contested application concluded at a final hearing provided for in Sch 2, Pt 2, Div 1 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (Rules).

15. There was considerable overlap between this proceeding and the related proceeding. The solicitors for the Minister were required to prepared two separate Court Books and respond to two separate applications. However, only one appearance was required at the final hearing and Counsel prepared an outline of submissions that addressed the claims in both proceedings. Therefore, it is not appropriate to order that the Minister be awarded the maximum sum prescribed by the Rules in both proceeding. In the exercise of the Court’s general discretion as to costs an appropriate and reasonable sum in each proceeding is $7,500.00. This represents a reduction of approximately 10% in the scale fee for each proceeding.

    ORDERS

16. The name of the first respondent is amended to ‘Minister for Immigration and Citizenship’.

17. The application for judicial review filed 18 July 2018 be dismissed.

18. The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the proceeding fixed in the sum of $7,500.00.

I certify that the preceding eighteen (18) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Corbett.

Associate:

Dated:       19 August 2025