EQU19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

This appeal concerns the refusal of a protection visa application by a Jordanian national who has been in Australia since 1997. The appellant had previously been granted a Resident Return visa, which was cancelled in 2017. He applied for a protection visa, which was refused by the delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision. The appellant appealed to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2), which quashed the Tribunal’s decision and ordered it to be reheard. The Tribunal again affirmed the delegate’s decision and the appellant now appeals to the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues in this appeal were whether the Tribunal made a finding that was illogical, irrational or not based on evidence and whether the Tribunal incorrectly applied section 423A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The appellant submitted that the Tribunal’s conclusion that he was not more devout in his Christian faith than other members of his family in Jordan was illogical, irrational or based on no evidence and was material, thereby amounting to jurisdictional error. The appellant also argued that the Tribunal failed to comply with section 423A of the Act in respect of his claim to be at risk of harm based upon his political opinion. The court considered the evidence provided by the appellant regarding his religious practice in Jordan and Australia, and found that the Tribunal’s conclusion that the appellant was not more devout than his family members and local Orthodox community was not illogical, irrational or not based on evidence. The court also found that the Tribunal had correctly applied section 423A of the Act.

The appeal was dismissed and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the first respondent. This decision reinforces the principle that the characterisation of a decision as legally unreasonable because of illogicality or irrationality is not easily made, and that the court should be slow to interfere in an appropriate case. The court also confirmed that the Tribunal had correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions in considering the appellant’s application for a protection visa.