Eht17 v Minister for Immigration
[2019] FCCA 2617
•19 September 2019
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| EHT17 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION | [2019] FCCA 2617 |
| Catchwords: MIGRATION – Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Protection visa application – application for judicial review of a decision a Delegate of the Minister of Immigration and Border Protection which found an application for a Protection (Class XA) (Subclass 866) visa to be invalid by force of ss.91N and 91P of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) as the Applicant was a dual national of both Syria and Lebanon – expert evidence of foreign law and evidence before the Court established that the Applicant was a dual national of both Syria and Lebanon – no jurisdictional error established – application for judicial review dismissed. |
| Legislation: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s.136 |
| Cases cited: AWA15 v Minister for Immigration [2018] FCA 604 SZOAU v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2012) 199 FCR 448 SZQYM v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2014) 220 FCR 505 |
| Applicant: | EHT17 |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION |
| File Number: | SYG 2983 of 2017 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Dowdy |
| Hearing date: | 23 May 2019 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 19 September 2019 |
REPRESENTATION
| The Applicant appeared in person. |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr D. Hughes of Counsel |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Clayton Utz |
THE ORDERS OF THE COURT ARE AS FOLLOWS:
The Application filed in this Court on 27 September 2017 is dismissed.
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 2983 of 2017
| EHT17 |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The Applicant in this proceeding is a male aged 28 years, having been born on 20 September 1991, who claims to be a national of Lebanon and denies being a national of Syria.
By Application filed in this Court on 27 September 2017 he seeks to quash and have re-determined the decision of the Delegate (Delegate) of the Respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Minister), dated 7 September 2017 notifying him that his application lodged on 30 June 2017 for a Protection (Class XA) (Subclass 866) visa (Protection visa) was not a valid application because of ss.91N and 91P of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act), which in short provide that a national of 2 or more countries cannot make a valid application for a Protection visa.
Background
In his Protection visa application form lodged by his migration agent on 30 June 2017 the Applicant stated and claimed as follows:
a)he last arrived in Sydney, Australia on 21 May 2017 from Lebanon holding a Lebanese passport;
b)when he arrived in Sydney he held a Sponsored Family Visitor (Subclass 600) visa;
c)he was born in the city of Tartous in Syria on 20 September 1991;
d)both his mother and father held Syrian and Lebanese citizenship;
e)his citizenship at birth was Lebanese and he is a citizen of Lebanon;
f)he speaks, reads and writes the Arabic language; and
g)he seeks protection in Australia from having to return to Lebanon because if he were to return he would suffer humiliation, persecution and fear having previously experienced significant hardship there, and having been shot five times over a three year period.
The Applicant had been immigration cleared upon arrival in Australia. I note that the copy of the Applicant’s Lebanese passport forwarded to the Department of the Minister by the Applicant’s migration agent with the Protection visa application form stated that the Applicant had been born in Tartous: see [3(c)] above.
Relevant Law and Criteria Applicable to Protection Visa Applications
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; ....
Impugned Decision of Delegate
The Delegate, in his Notification of Invalid Application for a Protection Visa dated 7 September 2017 (Delegate’s decision), stated relevantly as follows:
a)the Applicant’s application for a Protection visa was not valid because the following information indicated that he was a national of Syria and Lebanon;
i)the Applicant was born in the state of Syria to a mother and father both in possession of dual Lebanese – Syrian citizenship and Article 3(a) of Legislative Decree 276 provided that anyone born to a Syrian Arab father would hold Syrian citizenship at birth, and on that basis the Applicant had held Syrian citizenship from the time of his birth;
ii)the Applicant also held Lebanese citizenship because of Article 1 of Decree No. 15 on Lebanese Nationality due to his father’s Lebanese citizenship and the Applicant had presented evidence of a valid Republic of Lebanon passport bearing his own personal details, and on this basis the Applicant currently held Lebanese citizenship;
iii)given that there was no evidence of a loss, revocation or forfeiture of the citizenship of either nation the Applicant was a citizen of both Syria and Lebanon. Therefore his application for the Protection visa was invalid because of ss.91N and 91P of the Act, which prevents persons, who were within Australia, had been immigration cleared and at the time of application are nationals of more than one country, from making a valid application for a Protection visa while they remain in the migration zone; and
b)accordingly, the Protection visa application of the Applicant would be considered as a request for the Minister to exercise his public interest power under s.91Q of the Act.
Relevant Applicable Laws
Pursuant to s.47(3) of the Act the Minister has no power to consider an invalid visa application.
Sections 91N and 91P fall within Subdivision AK of Division 3 of Part 2 of the Act. The reason for the Subdivision is set out in s.91M, which reads:
Reason for this Subdivision
This Subdivision is enacted because the Parliament considers that a non-citizen who can avail himself or herself of protection from a third country, because of nationality or some other right to re-enter and reside in the third country, should seek protection from the third country instead of applying in Australia for a protection visa, or, in some cases, any other visa. Any such non-citizen who is an unlawful non-citizen will be subject to removal under Division 8.
Note: For protection visas, see section 36.
Section 91N of the Act relevantly provides:
Non-citizens to whom this Subdivision applies
(1)This Subdivision applies to a non-citizen at a particular time if, at that time, the noncitizen is a national of 2 or more countries.
(2)……………………….
(3)……………………….
(4)……………………….
(5)……………………….
Determining nationality
(6)For the purposes of this section, the question of whether a non-citizen is a national of a particular country must be determined solely by reference to the law of that country.
Section 91P of the Act relevantly provides:
Non-citizens to whom this Subdivision applies are unable to make valid applications for certain visas
(1).................................................................................
(2)Despite any other provision of this Act but subject to section 91Q, if:
(a)this Subdivision applies to a non-citizen at a particular time; and
(b)at that time, the non-citizen applies, or purports to apply, for a protection visa; and
(c)the non-citizen is in the migration zone and has been immigration cleared at that time;
neither that application, nor any other application made by the non-citizen for a protection visa while he or she remains in the migration zone, is a valid application.
Thus, a non-citizen who is “a national of 2 or more countries” under s.91N of the Act is, by reason of s.91P, unable to lodge a valid application for a Protection visa unless, pursuant to s.91Q, the Minister has personally made a determination that s.91P does not apply to the relevant Protection visa application.
Grounds of Attack on Delegate’s Decision in this Court
The Grounds relied upon by the Applicant are as follows:
1. The Department misunderstood the issue and made an error in determining that I am Lebanese and Syrian as well. There is no clear evidence to establish that I am a citizen of Syria. In my application I admitted that my parents' citizenship is Syrian and Lebanese but I am personally Lebanese therefore the Department made a wrong assumption that I am the holder of both Lebanese citizenship and Syrian citizenship.
2. The Department is aware of the terrible situation in Syria and failed to take into account that considering me as a citizen of Syria a country with problems should not lead the Department to consider me as making myself available to go to Syria.
3. I have a serious risk to return to Lebanon as indicated in my application for protection visa which was prepared by my migration agent. I also have a serious risk to return to Syria where there is sufficient evidence to the seriousness of the conditions in that country. I will provide family register and single birth certificate which initially demonstrates that I was born in Lebanon and Lebanon is my country of origin and residents and Syria was mentioned only because my parents are the holders of both Syrian and Lebanese citizenship.
4. I reserve my right to provide evidence to support my case when I receive copy of my file which was prepared by my agent, Mustafa Elsadik of 120 Haldon St, Lakemba NSW 2195.
(emphasis added)
General Consideration
I first note as follows:
a)the main issue in the case is whether or not the Applicant is both a Syrian national and a Lebanese national. Whether or not he is a national of 2 or more countries for the purposes of s.91N(1) and s.91P(2) of the Act is a jurisdictional fact to be determined by the Court;
b)Ground 2 and the first two sentences of Ground 3 seek to invoke an impermissible merits review in this Court of his actual substantive claims for protection, being the harm he claimed he would suffer if he were to return to Lebanon. However, these protection claims have never been considered on their merits by either the Delegate or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal because the Protection visa application was regarded as invalid. Ground 4 does not assert jurisdictional error at all. Accordingly, Grounds 2 and 4 and the first two sentences of Ground 3 will not be further considered; and
c)Ground 1 contains at least an implicit admission that the parents of the Applicant hold both Syrian and Lebanese citizenship, consistently with his statement to that effect in his Protection visa application form. Ground 3 contains an express admission in the last sentence that his “parents are the holders of both Syrian and Lebanese citizenship”.
At the first return date of this proceeding on 17 November 2017 the Applicant consented to an order requiring him to file and serve his Written Submissions 14 days before the final hearing, which was appointed for 23 May 2019. However, he did not file and serve any Written Submissions until the day before the hearing (Applicant’s Written Submissions) and after receipt of the Written Submissions of the Minister.
At [7] of the Applicant’s Written Submissions he blames his migration agent for having “mentioned wrongly that [his] parents are Lebanese and Syrian”. This is presumably a reference to the statement to that effect made in his Protection visa application form which had been lodged by his migration agent on 30 June 2017.
Notwithstanding that since the commencement of this proceeding the Applicant denied having been born in Tartous, Syria, he attached to the Applicant’s Written Submissions three documents which he tendered at the hearing in this Court, the first two documents said by him to be extracts from official records of the Government of Lebanon, and which three documents comprised:
a)an extract from the Individual Register of Personal Status in the Republic of Lebanon dated 4 July 2017 (Individual Register) which states that the Applicant was born in Tartous on 20 September 1991 and that he has been Lebanese for more than 10 years by virtue of Decree 5247/1994 (Naturalization Decree);
b)an extract of Family Registration from the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lebanon dated 4 July 2017 (Family Register) for members of the Applicant’s family which included statements that:
i)the father of the Applicant has been registered as Lebanese for more than 10 years;
ii)the Applicant and his deceased brother had been born in Tartous on 20 September 1991 and 1993 respectively; and
iii)“N.B. They were registered by virtue of Decree No. 5247/1994”;
c)a summary of the Naturalization Decree of the Republic of Lebanon, which stated:
Naturalization Decree of 1994
The 1994 Naturalisation Decree
By Guita Hourani
Director of the Lebanese Emigration Research Center of Notre Dame University, Lebanon
In 1994 a decree was signed by the President of the Lebanese Republic, Elias El -Hrawi, Prime Minister Rafic Hariri and Minister of Interior Beshara Merhej naturalising a large number of persons. This decree, which was preceded by the establishment of the Commission on Naturalisation in 1992 during the first post-war government led by Rafic Hariri, aimed at naturalising some stateless groups such as the Kurds, the Arabs of Wadi Khalid, and the Bedouins, among others. However, the majority of those who acquired Lebanese nationality under this decree were not stateless: over 42% of the naturalised were Syrian nationals versus 36% stateless, 16% Palestinians, and 6% from the rest of the world including descendants of Lebanese immigrants.
(emphasis added)
These documents were admitted into evidence at the hearing, with the Applicant giving oral evidence that the Lebanese Government kept documents such as those referred to in (a) and (b) above for every family in Lebanon and that the Naturalization Decree “that was introduced in ’94, that’s the Lebanese authority gave [my father] the Lebanese citizenship – citizenship, according to that legislation … that legislation [5247] in 1994 … that covers all the residents in Lebanon who don’t have any citizenship, and that is the people that legislation has covered then, from what I remember, there is about 88,000 plus who were granted citizenship. That’s what I wanted to say”.
The Applicant at the hearing also read and relied upon his affidavit sworn on 30 October 2018 in which he asserted that he had been born in Jabal Mohsen in North Lebanon and had never been to Syria, and denied having been born in Tartous. At [15] of this affidavit the Applicant referred to an extract from the Individual Register (which was not annexed to the affidavit) and asserted that it “wrongly indicates that I was born in Tartous”, and at [16] he referred to the Family Register (also not annexed to the affidavit) and asserted that “for some unknown reasons my parents registered their children as being born in various states in Syria”.
It is trite law that the hearsay rule prevents a party or a witness from giving admissible evidence of the place or date of their birth by his or her mere bare statement: Cross on Evidence at [33810] and the cases referred to therein. Accordingly, I ruled under s.136 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) that the affidavit not be evidence of where the Applicant was born.
Grounds 1 & Last sentence of Ground 3
Ground 1 asserts that there was no sufficient evidence to establish that the Applicant was a citizen of Syria and that he is a citizen of Lebanon, and that his admission that his parents were the holders of both Lebanese and Syrian citizenship did not establish that he was also a citizen of Syria.
The last sentence of Ground 3 asserts that the Applicant was born in Lebanon and confirms that both of his parents are the holders of both Syrian and Lebanese citizenship.
In relation to the issue of dual citizenship Mr Hughes of Counsel, who appeared for the Minister, relied on an expert report from a Syrian lawyer, Mr Fadi Sarkis, dated 11 May 2019 (Sarkis report). I note that foreign law is a question of fact to be proved by expert evidence and can relate to both the content of the foreign law and to an extent to the application of the foreign law to the facts of the particular case: Neilson v Overseas Projects Corporation of Victoria Ltd and Anor (2005) 223 CLR 331 at 370 [115] and 371 [119] – [120].
I find that Mr Sarkis is clearly an expert concerning Syrian law and his evidence, which I accept, establishes the following:
a)Syrian laws do not differentiate between the concept of a Syrian national and a Syrian citizen. Accordingly, a person who is a Syrian national is a Syrian citizen and vice versa. Further, any person who is a Syrian national is defined as a Syrian Arab. The Syrian Nationality law uses the terms “national” and “citizen” interchangeably;
b)a person is deemed to be a Syrian national when born inside or outside Syria to a Syrian father, or born in Syria to a Syrian mother and to an unknown father. In other words, an individual acquires Syrian citizenship by birth regardless of his place of birth, as long as his father is a Syrian citizen;
c)the Syrian Constitution uses the terms “Syrian citizens” and “citizenship” when referring to persons holding Syrian nationality;
d)Syrian law recognises the dual citizenship of Syrian citizens and a Syrian citizen with dual citizenship would continue to be regarded as a Syrian citizen when dealing with any issue relating to Syria and Syrian law;
e)a Syrian citizen can apply to renounce his or her citizenship of Syria only if he or she has acquired a non-Arab foreign nationality and the relevant Minister in Syria recommends in favour of the abandonment of their Syrian nationality. Renunciation is not available to Syrian citizens on the basis of having acquired Lebanese nationality;
f)revocation of Syrian citizenship can only be achieved by the enactment of a legislative decree for this purpose proposed by the Minister of Interior of Syria;
g)based on the assumption that the Applicant’s Syrian citizenship has not been renounced, his dual Syrian-Lebanese citizenship is recognised under Syrian law; and
h)the Applicant has a constitutional right to enter and reside in Syria by reason of Article 38(1) of the Syrian Constitution which provides:
i)A citizen may not be deported from the homeland or denied re-entry to it.
The Applicant has never suggested, and there is no evidence to suggest, that he has renounced or sought revocation of any Syrian citizenship held by him at any time, or that it has been revoked by legislative decree.
At the hearing the Applicant was cross-examined by Mr Hughes. I will confine myself to simply recording that I formed an adverse impression of the Applicant’s evidence under cross-examination and gained the view that he only wished to give evidence which he believed would support his claims, rather than giving full and frank evidence to assist the Court.
In cross-examination the Applicant first agreed with Mr Hughes that he had understood that it was important that the contents of his Protection visa application form be true and that he had checked the document to make sure that it was accurate. However, when Mr Hughes reminded him that he had given his birthplace as being Tartous in Syria he denied that this was so and attempted to shift the blame on to his migration agent by denying that he had written anything himself and saying that he did not know what the migration agent was going to write on the form, but was just asked by him to “Sign here for me and don’t worry”.
However, the Applicant then admitted that Tartous was his place of birth in the following exchange:
MR HUGHES: Sir, you told his Honour that you checked this document to make sure it was correct. When you did that, you checked and confirmed that Tartous in Syria was your place of birth, didn’t you?
EHT17: Yes.
THE INTERPRETER: Yes.
MR HUGHES: And that’s because you knew that was correct at the time, isn’t it?
EHT17: Yes.
THE INTERPRETER: Yes.
Then Mr Hughes asked the Applicant why his Protection visa application form recorded his father’s citizenship as Syrian and Lebanese and the Applicant responded that this was the work of the migration agent, and if he had known of it he would not have signed the form. The following exchange then took place:
MR HUGHES: Well, sir, you told his Honour that you checked this document, so you must have checked this; isn’t that right?
THE INTERPRETER: It’s correct. I told to his Honour that I looked at it, but when he want me to sign it he did not read it to me or get me to read it, that he has written that’s “your father and mother is Lebanese and Syrians”.
MR HUGHES: Well, sir, how did you check the document without reading it?
THE INTERPRETER: I don’t know
Shortly after that exchange the following occurred:
MR HUGHES: Well, sir, I suggest to you that you knew that this document recorded that you were born in Tartous and that your parents were Syrian and Lebanese because you knew those things were true and because you told your migration agent that at the time?
THE INTERPRETER: I did not tell him that. I did not tell the migration agent that.
HIS HONOUR: Can you give any explanation then why your migration agent would write in this application form that you had been born in Tartous and that your parents had Syrian and Lebanese citizenship if you hadn’t told him that?
THE INTERPRETER: He saw that I was shot at. He is from – and he is a Sunni and I am an Alawite, maybe that what – that’s the reason.
Then, having been pressed by Mr Hughes for some time, the following admission was made by the Applicant in this exchange:
MR HUGHES: Sir, the reason why you recorded in your application that your parents were citizens of both Lebanon and Syria is because you knew that to be true; is that correct?
THE INTERPRETER: Okay. Yes.
Mr Hughes then cross-examined the Applicant about his visit to the Syrian Consulate General in Sydney “some seven months ago”, as asserted in [7] of the Applicant’s Written Submissions. Inconsistently with this assertion, in answer to an open question from Mr Hughes the Applicant stated that his claimed visit to the Syrian Consulate General occurred “About three months ago…”. The following exchange took place:
MR HUGHES: Sir, the first time I asked you when you went to the Syrian consulate, you said about three months ago; that’s correct, isn’t it?
THE INTERPRETER: Yes. Yes. But I am scared. I am confused a bit. I – it’s the second time I enter into a courtroom. The first time, and this is the second time. I’m scared.
MR HUGHES: Well, sir, was it three months or not?
THE INTERPRETER: I don’t – I don’t remember when. Maybe a bit more than three months, a bit less than three months, but I have gone there and the conversation or the dialogue has happened. But probably he wants exactly when.
MR HUGHES: Well, sir, was it this year?
THE INTERPRETER: Yes. This year.
MR HUGHES: And, sir, in your written submissions, you say it was seven months ago. Can you explain that?
THE INTERPRETER: What do I explain?
MR HUGHES: Well, can you explain why you wrote yesterday that it happened seven months ago and why today you say it happened this year.
THE INTERPRETER: I don’t remember when exactly, and I’m a bit confused a bit here.
Findings
I find on the balance of probabilities as follows:
a)the Applicant was born in Tartous in Syria on 20 September 1991. This finding is supported by:
i)the Applicant’s Lebanese passport which gives Tartous as his place of birth;
ii)the statement in his Protection visa application form that Tartous was his place of birth;
iii)the Individual Register which gives his place of birth as Tartous;
iv)the Family Register which gives his place of birth of birth as Tartous; and
v)his own admission in cross-examination that Tartous was his place of birth, as recorded at [26] above;
b)at the time of the Applicant’s birth in Tartous his mother and father were citizens of Syria. This finding is supported by the cumulative evidence comprised in:
i)the statement in the Protection visa application form of the Applicant that his parents were citizens of both Lebanon and Syria;
ii)the implicit admission that his parents were Syrian citizens in Ground 1 of his Application;
iii)the explicit admission that his parents were Syrian citizens in Ground 3 of his Application; and
iv)his own admission in cross-examination that his parents were citizens of both Lebanon and Syria, as recorded at [29] above;
None of this evidence is qualified by any suggestion that at the time of the Applicant’s birth his parents did not hold Syrian citizenship, or that it was only at some time after his birth that they acquired Syrian citizenship.
Further, in my view the Family Register and the Naturalization Decree tendered by the Applicant (which I accept as official records of the Government of Lebanon), together with his own oral evidence to the effect that his father became a Lebanese citizen in or after 1994 under the Naturalization Decree (see [16] above), lead me to conclude that the Applicant’s father was originally a citizen of Syria, including at the date of the Applicant’s birth, and only subsequently around or after 1994 became a citizen of Lebanon. I also infer from both the Individual Register and the Family Register that the Applicant himself and the rest of his family identified in the Family Register, were originally citizens of Syria who only became citizens of Lebanon around or after 1994 under the Naturalization Decree and in this latter connection see the summary of the Naturalization Decree at [16(c)] above.
I reject the Applicant’s written and oral evidence to the effect that he was born in Jabal Mohsen in North Lebanon. I also reject the assertion first made at [7] of the Applicant’s Written Submissions that his migration agent “mentioned wrongly that my parents are Lebanese and Syrian” in his Protection visa application form. There is simply no plausible basis for finding that the migration agent, of his own sole volition, made up and wrongly stated that the Applicant had been born in Tartous and that his parents had Syrian and Lebanese citizenship. It is far more likely and plausible that the migration agent recorded this information in the Protection visa application form because it was given to him by the Applicant. Further, I find that the Applicant only asserted for the first time that his parents were not dual citizens of Syria and Lebanon after he had read the Minister’s Written Submissions, and did so because he realized that it might not be sufficient for the purposes of this proceeding for him to merely establish that he was born in Lebanon and not Syria.
I also reject any suggestion that prior to obtaining Lebanese citizenship his parents were stateless, including at the date of his birth. In circumstances where the Applicant in his Protection visa application form stated that his parents held Syrian and Lebanese citizenship and the Family Register and Naturalisation Decree established that he and his parents and the other identified family members only obtained Lebanese citizenship in 1994 or subsequently, it is more likely that his family members were part of the 42% of Syrian nationals naturalised as Lebanese citizens under the Naturalisation Decree, rather than stateless: see [16(c)] above.
In light of these factual findings it follows from the expert evidence of Mr Farkis that the Applicant is a citizen of Syria because he was born to a Syrian Arab father. He asserts, and it is common ground, that he is a citizen of Lebanon. Accordingly, I find that the Applicant “is a national of 2 or more countries” for the purposes of s.91N of the Act and that the word “national” in that section is not to be construed as involving more than the fact of nationality: SZOAU v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2012) 199 FCR 448 per Buchanan, Barker and Robertson JJ. There is no room for the word “national” in that section to be construed as meaning “effective national”: SZQYM v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2014) 220 FCR 505 at 508 [8] per Farrell J. As a matter of law, by reason of his dual nationality the Applicant is “a national of 2 or more countries”, namely Syria and Lebanon, and the Delegate was right to so find in the Delegate’s decision here under review.
Conclusion
In my view the Applicant’s Grounds for judicial review are not made out. The Applicant has failed to establish that the Delegate’s decision is affected by jurisdictional error and the Application filed in this Court is to be dismissed.
I certify that the preceding thirty-five (35) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Dowdy
Associate:
Date: 19 September 2019
1
6
3