FHX20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

In the case of FHX20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, the applicant, a citizen of Malaysia who had entered Australia on an Electronic Travel Authority, sought a judicial review of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal’s (AAT) decision to affirm the delegate’s refusal to grant him a protection visa. The applicant argued that the Tribunal should have adjourned the hearing to allow him to remain in Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic, that it failed to consider the full scope of his claims, and that it did not properly consider the harm he feared if returned to Malaysia. The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Tribunal had made a jurisdictional error in its decision-making process.

The Court reviewed the AAT’s decision and found no evidence of jurisdictional error. The AAT had comprehensively considered the applicant’s claims, noting that while the applicant had faced difficulties in finding employment, there was no evidence of harm or persecution in Malaysia that would warrant a grant of a protection visa. The Court determined that the AAT’s findings were based on a thorough assessment of the evidence and did not reflect any material error in identifying or addressing the issues. Furthermore, the Court found that the Tribunal had not failed to ask the applicant about the harm he feared, as the applicant had indicated that he was not fearful but cautious about COVID-19 and wanted to remain in Australia temporarily.

Based on this analysis, the Court concluded that there was no jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision. The Court dismissed the applicant’s application for judicial review.