DZT20 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Case [2025] FCA 286

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DZT20 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 286

Appeal from: DZT20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FedCFamC2G 308
File number: WAD 89 of 2022
Judgment of: JACKSON J
Date of judgment: 31 March 2025
Catchwords: MIGRATION - appeal from decision of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) - judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to refuse protection visas - alleged failure of Tribunal to consider obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child - alleged failure of Tribunal to adequately review refugee criterion - alleged failure of Tribunal to adequately review complementary protection claims in respect of low‑level harm and discrimination - appeal dismissed
Legislation:

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 37M

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 36

Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, opened for signature 28 July 1951, 189 UNTS 137 (entered into force 22 April 1954)

Convention on the Rights of the Child, opened for signature 20 November 1989, 1557 UNTS 3 (entered into force 2 September 1990)

Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, opened for signature 31 January 1967, 606 UNTS 267 (entered into force 4 October 1967)
Cases cited:

Iyer v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1788

SZRLY v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCA 1459

WZAVK v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 114
Division: General Division
Registry: Western Australia
National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Number of paragraphs: 39
Date of hearing: 6 March 2025
Counsel for the Appellants: The first appellant appeared in person with the assistance of an Interpreter
Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms B Rayment
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Sparke Helmore Lawyers
Counsel for the Second Respondent: The second respondent filed a submitting notice save as to costs

ORDERS

WAD 89 of 2022
BETWEEN:

DZT20

First Appellant

DZU20

Second Appellant

DZV20

Third Appellant
AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JACKSON J

DATE OF ORDER:

31 MARCH 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal is dismissed.

2.The appellants must pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal, to be assessed if not agreed.

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


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

JACKSON J:

  1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (Circuit Court).  The application before the Circuit Court was for judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.  The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent (Minister) to refuse protection visas to the appellants.

  2. The appellants are a family unit from the province of Punjab in Pakistan.  The first appellant entered Australia in 2011, and then returned to Pakistan and came…

Continue reading DZT20 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
DZT20 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 286
Case
[2025] FCA 286
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of DZT20 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the Federal Court of Australia was asked to review a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) to deny protection visas to the applicants. The applicants, DZT20, argued that the AAT failed to properly consider the obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, did not adequately review the refugee criteria, and did not sufficiently consider their complementary protection claims concerning low-level harm and discrimination. The applicants sought judicial review of the AAT's decision, challenging the validity of the AAT's findings and conclusions.

The central legal issues the court had to decide were whether the AAT correctly assessed the applicants' claims under the refugee and complementary protection criteria, and whether the AAT adequately considered the obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the AAT properly evaluated the credibility of the applicants' claims, the timing of the application for the visas, and the evidence provided in support of the claims. Additionally, the court examined whether the AAT appropriately considered the applicants' experiences of low-level harm and discrimination and their implications under the complementary protection criterion.

The court found that the AAT's decision was well-reasoned and supported by the evidence. It concluded that the AAT had carefully considered the applicants' claims and the evidence provided. The court determined that the AAT's findings regarding the lack of credibility in the applicants' claims were reasonable and appropriately weighed. The court also found that the AAT adequately reviewed the refugee criterion and the complementary protection claims. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the AAT's decision.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was dismissed and that the applicants must pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal, to be assessed if not agreed. This decision underscored the importance of the AAT's role in carefully assessing the credibility and sufficiency of evidence in protection visa applications and the rigorous standards applied in such judicial reviews.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The appellants must pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal, to be assessed if not agreed.

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

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

I will now describe the relevant aspects of the Tribunal's decision and of the Circuit Court's decision, before considering the merits of the appeal.The Tribunal's decision The Tribunal conducted two hearings in the course of its review of the delegate's decision to refuse to grant protection visas. The Tribunal described the first appellant's protection claims as not particularised and somewhat difficult to discern. As best the Tribunal could tell, the first appellant was claiming that he had been a member of the student wing of the Pakistan People's Party (PPP), that he had been politically engaged prior to 2005, and that he had briefly been arrested and detained during a political protest in or around 1999. After graduation, he was briefly a full member of the PPP. He claimed that while employed in Pakistan between 2006 and 2010 he had experienced harassment and intimidation from persons associated with the rival Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz Party. This was said to have occurred particularly at election times. Members of the first appellant's extended family were also said to have experienced harassment and intimidation. The Tribunal characterised the first appellant's claims and the evidence supplied in support as 'unreasonably vague, internally inconsistent and lacking in credibility in material respects' (para 26). It found his claims to lack supporting evidence, where he may have been able to obtain such evidence. The Tribunal was concerned by the fact that the first appellant delayed applying for a protection visa until October 2014, despite having first come to Australia in 2011 and despite claiming to have feared persecution in Pakistan no later than 2008. It found that he had provided no reasonable explanation for the delay. The Tribunal was also concerned that first appellant's claims arose from events which were said to have happened before the first appellant came to Australia for the first time in 2011, and yet he had returned to Pakistan on two occasions after that. There were other concerns that need not be described. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the first appellant was a low-level supporter of the PPP in Pakistan prior to 2008, and that during that time he experienced a low-level of discrimination and harassment for that reason. But at some point between 2008 and 2011, he ceased to be involved in politics in Pakistan 'at any level' (para 78) and by the time he came to Australia in May 2011, 'he feared no harm from any person for any reason' in Pakistan (para 78). On the basis in part of the concerns mentioned above, the Tribunal found that the first appellant's 'claims for protection are lacking in credibility and without merit' (para 79). It found that the appellants did not hold a genuine subjective fear of persecution in Pakistan for any reason. It therefore found that they did not meet the refugee criterion for the grant of a protection visa in s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (as it stood in 16 October 2014), which imported into Australian law the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, opened for signature 28 July 1951, 189 UNTS 137 (entered into force 22 April 1954) as amended by the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, opened for signature 31 January 1967, 606 UNTS 267 (entered into force 4 October 1967). Also, on the basis of the same credibility findings, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the appellants were persons to whom Australia owed protection obligations under the complementary protection criterion found in s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act.The proceeding in the Circuit Court

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.