FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
EQU19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FedCFamC2G 609
ORDERS
SYG 1879 of 2021 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: EQU19
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE GIVEN
DATE OF ORDER:
5 AUGUST 2022
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application, as amended on 27 January 2022, is dismissed.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia…
Continue reading EQU19 v MICMSMA
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- EQU19 v MICMSMA [2022] FedCFamC2G 609
- Case
- [2022] FedCFamC2G 609
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of EQU19 v MICMSMA, the applicant sought judicial review of a decision made by the Tribunal on 20 September 2021. The Tribunal had affirmed the decision under review, which pertained to the applicant's protection visa application. The applicant, a man with a complex immigration history, had attended a two-day hearing before the Tribunal, which was represented by counsel. The applicant's claims centred on his Orthodox Christian faith and his fear of harm from various groups in Jordan, including the Muslim community, military, local authorities, and his former fiancée's family. He also claimed to fear being targeted due to a tribal feud and that he would be unable to subsist in Jordan due to mental and other health reasons, lack of family support, and his prolonged absence from the country.
The central legal issues that the court was required to decide revolved around the applicant's credibility and the validity of his claims regarding his Christian faith and the risks he would face if returned to Jordan. The court needed to assess whether the Tribunal's findings on these matters were reasonable and supported by the evidence. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the applicant's claims about his religious practice and the associated risks were credible and whether the Tribunal's conclusions on these points were justified.
The court examined the Tribunal's assessment of the applicant's evidence and found that the Tribunal had carefully considered the voluminous evidence presented. The court noted that the Tribunal had concerns about the consistency and reliability of the applicant's claims regarding his religious devotion and commitment to proselytising. The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence to be vague, changeable, and unsubstantiated, leading to the conclusion that he practiced as a nominal Orthodox Christian rather than a devout proselytiser. The court found no errors in the Tribunal's approach or its ultimate conclusions, affirming that the decision was well-reasoned and supported by the evidence.
The final orders of the court were to dismiss the application for judicial review, thereby upholding the Tribunal's decision. The court found that the Tribunal had acted within its jurisdiction and had made its decision based on a proper consideration of the evidence. The applicant's claims were not deemed credible enough to warrant a different outcome, and thus, the court found no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's decision.
The central legal issues that the court was required to decide revolved around the applicant's credibility and the validity of his claims regarding his Christian faith and the risks he would face if returned to Jordan. The court needed to assess whether the Tribunal's findings on these matters were reasonable and supported by the evidence. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the applicant's claims about his religious practice and the associated risks were credible and whether the Tribunal's conclusions on these points were justified.
The court examined the Tribunal's assessment of the applicant's evidence and found that the Tribunal had carefully considered the voluminous evidence presented. The court noted that the Tribunal had concerns about the consistency and reliability of the applicant's claims regarding his religious devotion and commitment to proselytising. The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence to be vague, changeable, and unsubstantiated, leading to the conclusion that he practiced as a nominal Orthodox Christian rather than a devout proselytiser. The court found no errors in the Tribunal's approach or its ultimate conclusions, affirming that the decision was well-reasoned and supported by the evidence.
The final orders of the court were to dismiss the application for judicial review, thereby upholding the Tribunal's decision. The court found that the Tribunal had acted within its jurisdiction and had made its decision based on a proper consideration of the evidence. The applicant's claims were not deemed credible enough to warrant a different outcome, and thus, the court found no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's decision.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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
On 20 September 2021, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review (CB 812-842). It is in respect of that decision that the applicant now seeks judicial review. Tribunal’s decision Given the applicant’s varied and extensive immigration history and that there have been several iterations of the determination and review of his protection visa, the Tribunal’s decision is unsurprisingly lengthy and covers a considerable amount of material. That is further so given that the applicant attended a two day hearing before the Tribunal at which he was represented by Counsel. The evidence before the Tribunal, which it described as being “voluminous”, is outlined at [14] of the reasons for decision (CB 814-815). The applicant’s claims are briefly summarised by the Tribunal at [6] (CB 813). In essence the applicant claimed to fear harm from the Jordanian authorities and also the Muslim community because of his Orthodox Christian faith which he claimed he had been unable to practice in Jordan. The applicant said that he would be harmed by Muslims, the military, local authorities and his former fiancée’s family and he would be imputed with sympathy for the West. In this regard the applicant had family in Jordan and the United States. He gave evidence about his practice of Christianity both in Jordan and in Australia. The applicant claimed to fear harm from the family of a former partner who would “exact revenge on him on honour grounds” and additionally claimed to fear being targeted as a result of a tribal feud. The applicant also claimed that he would be unable to subsist in Jordan “due to mental and other health reasons, lack of family support and his prolonged absence from the country”. The applicant submitted substantial material concerning his health. The Tribunal considered at [28]-[44] (CB 817-820) and [98]-[105] (CB 831-832) the applicant’s claim to fear harm relating to his Christian faith and accepted that the applicant is a Christian as claimed (CB 817 at [28]). The Tribunal (at [28]-[44]) outlined the applicant’s claim to fear harm on the basis of his Christian practice. It recounted the applicant’s evidence at hearing concerning his past religious practice in Jordan and the practices of his family members (CB 818 at [30]-[31]). The Tribunal considered the applicant’s evidence in this regard, “particularly [about] the strength of his religious conviction, lacking in detail and consistency”. It noted that there was “no context or supporting evidence for his claim that he was more devout than all his family members, or the local Orthodox community” and considered these claims to be “exaggerated and unreliable” (CB 818 at [32]). It then noted the applicant’s evidence relating to his Christian practice in Australia, including letters confirming the applicant’s attendance at churches and completion of a Bible study course (CB 818-819 at [33]-[34]). The Tribunal referred to the applicant’s statement of 9 July 2021 where he claimed that he would proselytise if returned to Jordan (CB 819 at [36]). The Tribunal had “significant concerns about [the applicant’s] claims to have always been devout, and to have a strong commitment to spreading the Gospel” and found the applicant’s evidence to be “vague, changeable and unsubstantiated” (CB 819 at [37]). It found that the applicant practices as a “nominal Orthodox Christian” in Jordan and “(when the opportunity arises) in Australia” but did not accept that he had adopted the beliefs or practices of Protestant groups he had met in recent years or that he had a genuine commitment to proselytise in the future in Australia or Jordan (CB 318 at [38]).
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.