EZG17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

[2022] FedCFamC2G 1024

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia

(DIVISION 2)

EZG17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FedCFamC2G 1024  

File number:	MLG2439 of 2017
Judgment of:	JUDGE FORBES
Date of judgment:	7 November 2022
Catchwords:	MIGRATION -protection visa – applicant fears harm due to homosexuality – Tribunal affirmed delegate’s refusal of visa - application for judicial review – at trial applicant concedes no error by Tribunal – application dismissed
Division:	Division 2 General Federal Law
Number of paragraphs:	8
Date of hearing:	7 November 2022
Place:	Melbourne
Applicant:	Mr Amsyar in person
Solicitor for the Respondents:	Mr Mendis of Sparke Helmore

ORDERS

MLG 2439 of 2017

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

EZG17

Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

order made by:	JUDGE FORBES
DATE OF ORDER:	7 NOVEMBER 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed at $3,737.00.

3.The name of the First Respondent be amended to the ‘Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs’.

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 (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(revised from transcript)

Judge Forbes

1. The applicant in this case is a Malaysian citizen who first arrived in Australia in February 2016. On 18 October 2017, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) made a decision confirming a decision by a delegate not to grant him a protection visa. 

2. The application for judicial review that has been listed for hearing before the Court today was filed in November 2017. In his application, the applicant identified six grounds of review.  The grounds of the applicant’s application were as follows (errors in original):

   1.Me and my partner living homosexual. The Tribunal member was not believe that.

   2.Both of us was scared to face the Tribunal member.

   3.We scared because our relationship the Tribunal member was asking a lot of questions.

   4.The Tribunal member does not there be a real chance that the both of us face serious.

   5.If we go back out family will forced me marry to woman.

   6.The Tribunal member not believe that I got real fear if I go back to my country.

3. The application that was made in November 2017 included a copy of the Tribunal’s decision. I can indicate that I have read the Tribunal’s decision, and I have also looked at and considered the documents in the court book that has been produced by the Minister.

4. I have also read the written outline of submissions dated 22 March 2019 which was prepared by the Minister’s solicitor. In those submissions, the Minister contends that each of the grounds of review do not reveal jurisdictional error by the Tribunal

5. Despite orders being made by the Court which provided the applicant with an opportunity to file and serve any affidavits or other documents, he has not done so in this proceeding. 

6. The application was listed to be heard before me today. The applicant has appeared with the assistance of a Malay interpreter, and Mr Mendis appeared on behalf of the Minister.

7. At the commencement of the proceedings today, I explained to the applicant the process that I would follow. When I then afforded the applicant an opportunity to inform the Court what the Tribunal had done wrong, he informed me that there had been no mistake by the Tribunal. 

8. Having read the documents in the court book and the Minister’s outline of submissions together with hearing the submissions from the applicant today, I am satisfied that there is no error in the Tribunal decision. For those reasons, I will order that the application be dismissed and that the applicant pay the Minister’s costs.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the ex tempore Reasons for Judgment of Judge Forbes.

Associate:

Dated:       7 November 2022