DUO16 v Minister for Immigration and Anor

[2020] FCCA 603

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DUO16 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2020] FCCA 603

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Mistranslation asserted in amended application for review – orders for parties to obtain transcript of part of hearing before delegate – orders accordingly.

Applicant: DUO16

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Second Respondent: IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY

File Number: PEG 665 of 2018

Judgment of: Judge Egan

Hearing date: 11 October 2019, 28 February 2020

Date of Last Submission: 28 February 2020

Delivered at: Brisbane

Delivered on: 28 February 2020

REPRESENTATION

Applicant: In person

First Respondent: Ms Ladhams, Lawyer of AGS

Second Respondent: Submitting appearance

ORDERS

1. The further hearing of the application for review be adjourned to 10:15am (AEST) on 12 March 2020 before Judge Egan sitting at Brisbane.

2. The parties have leave to appear via video conference from the Federal Circuit Court situated in Perth.

3. The parties are to confer and to provide to the Court evidence of the English translation of what was relevantly said during the course of the applicant’s protection visa interview between the 35th minute and the 40th minute of such interview.

4. Each party have liberty to apply on the giving of two (2) days’ notice, each to the other.

5. The costs of and incidental to the adjournment today be reserved.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT BRISBANE

PEG 665 of 2018

DUO16

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On the last occasion that this matter was before the Court, it was noted that the grounds for review were unparticularised. As a result, the Court ordered that the applicant was to file and serve an amended application for review setting out particulars of the grounds upon which it was asserted that the Immigration Assessment Authority was wrong in refusing to grant to her the relevant visa.

2. On 25 October 2019, the applicant filed an amended application. Ground 3 of that amended application raised a mistranslation issue concerning what was allegedly said during the course of the protection visa interview. In particular, ground 3(a) of the amended application for review provided as follows:

   “In regards to Part 34, page 273 (namely, paragraph 34 on page 273 of the court book), the translator made an error in translating what I said during the 38th minute of my PV interview. I stated, “I've been working on the weekends, so I have not been able to attend church. But I did Bible Study and gained more information for myself through searching on Google.” The translator, however, translated, “(Applicant) did Bible Study in her own time.”

   I suppose the translator was not familiar with this term “Bible Study”. It is, in fact, as confirmed by Pastor Stevenson in his letter dated 18 July 2016, a study that is done with a group of Christian friends (page 133).”

3. The Court is inclined to grant the applicant’s request to have more time to put before the Court a written record, in English, of what actually was said in Farsi at the 38th minute of the PV interview. For that purpose, Ms Ladhams, on behalf of the first respondent, has kindly agreed to assist the Court in having before it the relevant translation, by indicating to the Court that she will endeavour to have translated today, with the assistance of the interpreter who appeared at Court today assisting the applicant, an agreed version of what was said between the 35th minute and the 40th minute of the PV interview. The added time sought by the Court is to ensure that nothing of relevance is missed for consideration by the Court upon the next hearing.

4. The Court will order as follows.

I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Egan.

Associate:

Date: 17 March 2020