GQL18 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

[2023] FedCFamC2G 367

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 2)

GQL18 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FedCFamC2G 367

File number:	MLG 3884 of 2018
Judgment of:	JUDGE YOUNG
Date of judgment:	18 April 2023
Catchwords:	MIGRATION – application for review of a decision of the AAT to affirm a decision of the Minister’s delegate to refuse the applicant a protection visa – where the applicant is an Indian citizen of Punjabi background – where the applicant claims he was threatened by his wife’s family and feared harm from them if he were to return to India – where the harm the applicant feared was harm as a result of a marital or family dispute -  where the grounds of review are expressed generally – where the applicant alleges a lack of procedural fairness – where the court is not satisfied there has been jurisdictional error – the application is dismissed.
Legislation:	Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 5J(1), 36 (2A)
Division:	Division 2 Family Law
Number of paragraphs:	6
Date of hearing:	18 April 2023
Place:	Darwin
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Self- Represented Litigant
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms Roberts
Solicitor for the Respondent:	DLA Piper

ORDERS

MLG 3884 of 2018
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:	GQL18 Applicant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent

order made by:	JUDGE YOUNG
DATE OF ORDER:	18 APRIL 2023

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The Application filed 19 December 2018 be dismissed.

2.The Applicant pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $7,467.00.

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

Judge Young:

1. This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to affirm a decision of the Minister’s delegate to refuse the applicant a protection visa.  The applicant is an Indian citizen of Punjabi background.  He married in 2012.  He and his wife came to Australia shortly afterwards.  I think the wife came first and the applicant came later and difficulties developed in the marriage thereafter.  According to the applicant, his wife and members of his wife’s family threatened him with making what is called in the decision ‘a false dowry claim’ and made a false report against him to the police. 

2. The applicant said that he was threatened with jail in India by the wife or members of her family and he feared if he returns to India he would be persecuted by the wife’s family or by those who have influence on behalf of the wife’s family. He mentioned, in particular, Congress Party politicians.  He also said that he could not relocate within India to avoid the risk of harm because he was from a farming family in Punjab and did not have the means to survive elsewhere. 

3. The Tribunal accepted that the harm the applicant said he feared in India constituted serious harm for the purpose of section 5J(1) of the Migration Act but the grounds on which the applicant professed to fear harm, that is, harm as a result of a marital or family dispute, was not a convention ground reflected in subsection 36(2A) of the Migration Act.  In relation to the complementary protection provisions of the Act, the Tribunal found, in substance, that the applicant, being a young, single man with some evidence of having worked, including in Australia and in Dubai, was a person who was likely to be able to adequately sustain himself, and the Tribunal was satisfied that should the applicant relocate within India, that any chance of harm from the wife’s family or those acting on their behalf was remote and affirmed the delegate’s decision.

4. The applicant’s application for review referred to grounds set out in an affidavit filed with the review. The grounds are in general terms and allege a breach of the rules of natural justice or a denial of procedural fairness and also allege errors of law including failure to take into account relevant considerations, unreasonableness and failing to comply with refugee law, which is alleged by the applicant without any reference to particular law. In further paragraphs it is asserted that the applicant was not given a meaningful opportunity to be heard and was denied procedural fairness, that the Tribunal failed to consider each of the integers of the applicant’s claim, and that the decision was vague and failed to take into account country information.  The applicant has not filed any written submissions and I invited him today to expand on the grounds that were set out in the affidavit but he was unable to do so in any meaningful way. 

5. He did say, however, that his complaint about the conduct of the Tribunal hearing was that the interpreter he was provided with at the hearing did not interpret properly.  He was vague about what that meant but he did say that his Punjabi interpreter did not appear to know the meaning of some words in Punjabi and asked him for elaboration on the meaning of words and he inferred from that that the interpreter was a native Hindi speaker rather than a Punjabi speaker.  I asked him if he was able to point to anything in the decision of the Tribunal which would indicate that the Tribunal member had misunderstood something he said through the interpreter or the Tribunal had made some factual error in its consideration of his claims and he was unable to point to any such error in the reasons. 

6. Indeed, he said to me that he did not have a copy of the reasons with him, though he had read them, so he was not able to point to any error.  I also explained to the applicant that my task hearing the review application was not simply to reconsider the matter but to decide whether there was some error in the decision of the Tribunal and I asked him to elaborate on what those errors, if any, might be but he was unable to do so.  There is authority for the proposition that a ground of review in general terms, such as the grounds advanced by the applicant, do not require any detailed consideration in the absence of particulars and I am satisfied that is the case here and there is not a proper ground of review advanced by the applicant.  In the circumstances, I am not satisfied there is any jurisdictional error.  The application is dismissed.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment of Judge Young.

Associate:

Dated:       18 April 2023