ELS17 v Minister for Immigration

[2018] FCCA 1674

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ELS17 & ANOR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2018] FCCA 1674

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Protection Visa – whether Administrative Appeals Tribunal’s decision affected by jurisdictional error – where no error established in Administrative Appeals Tribunal’s decision – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.36(2)(aa).

First Applicant: ELS17

Second Applicant: ELT17

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Number: BRG 985 of 2017

Judgment of: Judge Vasta

Hearing date: 18 June 2018

Date of Last Submission: 18 June 2018

Delivered at: Brisbane

Delivered on: 18 June 2018

REPRESENTATION

The Applicants appearing their own behalf with the assistance of an interpreter

Solicitors for the First Respondent: Clayton Utz

ORDERS

1. That the Application filed 4 October 2017 be dismissed.

2. That the Applicants pay costs to the First Respondent fixed in the sum of $7,328.00.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT BRISBANE

No. BRG 985 of 2017

ELS17

First Applicant

ELT17

Second Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Ex Tempore)

1. On 7 September 2017 the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the AAT/ Tribunal”) affirmed a decision of the delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs not to grant the Applicants, who are husband and wife, ELS17 and ELT17 protection visas.  The claims that the Applicants make are somewhat bizarre.

2. The Applicants are citizens of Malaysia.  A summary of the Applicants’ claim in the protection visa application is this: 

   a)the Applicants were forced to join a cult; 

   b)they will face harm and will be threatened and kidnapped if they return to Malaysia;  and

   c)the Applicant husband was forced to drink holy water and, if he did not do so, they threatened to hurt the Applicant wife.  The Applicant husband tried to fight back but failed to do so, after which they hit the Applicant wife and threatened her with a knife until they both did what was asked.

3. In the hearing before the AAT, this was said, and I will quote from paragraph 27, by the Applicant husband. 

   … He stated that having returned from Singapore on 20 December 2012 they went to a shopping centre to buy clothes.  While they were there they met a neighbour from the village who they had not seen for a long time and had a chat.  She said something about inviting them to have food together.  She was very insistent.  He was embarrassed to say no so they went along.  They arrived at her home at around 5-6 pm.  By the time they got there they felt something was wrong.  When the entered the room, about seven to eight people were reciting verses.  He asked his neighbour what happened.  She said sorry, she doesn’t know.  They wanted to leave but those people stopped them from leaving…

4. The Tribunal asked the Applicant in what way were they stopped.  He stated that they blocked the door and asked them to join the church.  The people threatened…