Epj19 v Minister for Immigration - [2020] FCCA 2197

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

EPJ19 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2020] FCCA 2197

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Review of Immigration Assessment Authority decision – refusal of a protection visa – applicant claiming a fear of harm in Iran – applicant disbelieved in part and other fears found not to be well-founded – whether the Authority overlooked a relevant consideration, asked itself the wrong question or failed to properly consider a claim considered – no jurisdictional error.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.5J, 473CB, 473DC, 476, 477

Cases cited:

Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24

Appellant S395/2002 v Minister for Immigration (2003) 216 CLR 473

AXT19 v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCAFC 32

Carrascalao v Minister for Immigration (2017) 252 FCR 352

CXS18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCAFC 18

DWA17 v Minister for Immigration [2019] FCAFC 160

Hossain v Minister for Immigration (2018) 264 CLR 123

Minister for Immigration v SZIAI (2009) 259 ALR 429

Minister for Immigration v SZLSP (2010) 187 FCR 362

Minister for Immigration v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611

Minister for Immigration v SZMTA; CQZ15 v Minister for Immigration; BEG15 v Minister for Immigration (2019) 264 CLR 421

Minister for Immigration v SZOCT (2010) 189 FCR 577

Minister for Immigration v SZRKT (2013) 212 FCR 99

Minister for Immigration v SZVFW (2018) 357 ALR 408

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

MZZJO v Minister for Immigration (2014) 239 FCR 436

NABE v Minister for Immigration (No 2) (2004) 144 FCR 1

Ram v Minister for Immigration (1995) 57 FCR 565

Singh v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 3

SZOOR v Minister for Immigration (2012) 202 FCR 1

WALT v Minister for Immigration [2007] FCAFC 2

Wang v Minister for Immigration (2000) 105 FCR 548

Applicant:

EPJ19

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Second Respondent:

IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY

File Number:

SYG 3026 of 2019

Judgment of:

Judge Driver

Hearing date:

29 July 2020

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

26 August 2020

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr N Li

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Lander & Rogers

Counsel for the Respondents:

Ms A Carr

Solicitors for the Respondents:

Mills Oakley

ORDERS

The application as amended on 9 March 2020 is dismissed.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 3026 of 2019

EPJ19

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction and background

The applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the Immigration Assessment Authority (Authority) made on 2 August 2019. The Authority affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister (delegate) not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
The following statement of background facts is derived from submissions filed on behalf of the Minister on 13 July 2020.
The applicant is a citizen of Iran who arrived in Australia on 6 March 2013 as an unauthorised maritime arrival.[1] On 18 March 2013, the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Epj19 v Minister for Immigration and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] FCCA 2197
Decision Date: 26 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Epj19, sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) to refuse their application for a protection visa. The applicant claimed to fear harm in Iran, but the IAA had disbelieved parts of their account and found other claimed fears to be not well-founded. The matter came before Judge Driver in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the IAA had committed jurisdictional error by overlooking a relevant consideration, asking itself the wrong question, or failing to properly consider a claim that had been considered.

Judge Driver found that the IAA had not committed jurisdictional error. The Court reasoned that the IAA had considered the applicant's claims and provided reasons for its findings. The Authority's assessment of the applicant's credibility and the well-foundedness of their fears did not demonstrate an error of the kind that would vitiate the decision. The Court concluded that the IAA had properly engaged with the evidence and the relevant legal framework.

No specific orders were detailed in the provided text, but the outcome was that the application for judicial review was dismissed.

Orders