FQG17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

[2023] FedCFamC2G 526

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 2)

FQG17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FedCFamC2G 526

File number:	MLG 2791 of 2017
Judgment of:	JUDGE YOUNG
Date of judgment:	7 June 2023
Catchwords:	MIGRATION LAW – application for review of a decision of the AAT – where the application for review does not disclose any conventional grounds of review – where the application says that the claims advanced in his protection visa application were false – where the applicant says he made false claims in his application on the advice of another person – where the applicant repeats the claims he made to the Tribunal – where nothing the applicant has said is a claim for protection – the application is dismissed.
Division:	Division 2 General Federal Law
Number of paragraphs:	5
Date of hearing:	7 June 2023
Place:	Darwin
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Self-Represented Litigant
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms Wright
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Mills Oakley

ORDERS

MLG 2791 of 2017

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

FQG17

Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Respondent

order made by:	JUDGE YOUNG
DATE OF ORDER:	7 JUNE 2023

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The Application filed on 20 December 2017 is dismissed.

2.The Applicant pay the costs of the First Respondent fixed in the sum of $5,100.

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).

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Judge Young:

1. This is an application for judicial review of a decision of an AAT decision made on 5 December 2017.  The application for judicial review does not disclose any conventional ground of review, being self-drafted by the applicant.  He says:

   I made application with third person and he is make a fake application and reason.

2. The other ground alleged is that:

   Due the nationality and citizen issues in Malaysia, I want to get applied at Federal Circuit Court.

3. I attempted to explain to the applicant today the nature of judicial review for jurisdictional error in appropriately simple language with the assistance of an interpreter.  I invited the applicant to make any oral submissions he wished as he has not made any written submissions.  He said, in substance, what he had told the Tribunal Member, that is, the claims advanced in his protection visa application of 4 March 2016 were false and he had made them on the suggestion of some other person.  He said the real situation was that while he is a Malaysian citizen, his parents are not Malaysian citizens and he experiences, to use my description, discrimination in educational opportunities in Malaysia because of the fact that his parents are not citizens.  He provided no further particulars about that.

4. The applicant arrived in Australia on 27 December 2015.  He applied for a protection visa on 4 March 2016.  In the protection visa application, he advanced claims for protection which were, in summary, that he had participated in anti-government protests in Malaysia in 2015 and, as a consequence, was pursued by the authorities.  The delegate refused his application and he sought a review of that decision and the matter went to the Tribunal and was heard on 5 December 2017.  On that date, the applicant, as I already mentioned, told the Tribunal Member that those claims advanced in the written protection visa application were incorrect and that he had been encouraged to make those claims by a third party.

5. The Tribunal Member, not surprisingly, in view of that, did not accept the claims advanced in the protection visa application.  It was clear from other things that the applicant said to the Tribunal Member in the hearing that the applicant sought to remain living in Australia regardless.  He was in employment and he wished to continue with the arrangements he had in place in Australia.  Nothing the applicant said to the Tribunal Member was a claim for protection on any conventional ground or the grounds in the Act, and I am satisfied that no such claims have been genuinely advanced and I am satisfied that there are no claims advanced before me today that make any difference to that conclusion.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Young.

Associate:

Dated:       7 June 2023