GYK24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2)
[2025] FedCFamC2G 1338
•19 August 2025
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
GYK24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2G 1338
File number(s): BRG 561 of 2024 Judgment of: JUDGE EGAN Date of judgment: 19 August 2025 Catchwords: MIGRATION LAW – Where it was open for the Tribunal to find that the applicant arrived in Australia for the purpose of advancing his economic situation – where the applicant had no reasonable belief that he would experience harm if returned to Indonesia – no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed. Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s. 5J, s. 36(2)(a), s. 36(2)(aa), s. 65 Cases cited:
BUP24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 785
DEZ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 240
Hamod v New South Wales [2011] NSWCA 375
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 1389
WZAVW v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2016] FCA 760
Division: Division 2 General Federal Law Number of paragraphs: 15 Date of hearing: 7 August 2025 Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant appeared on their own behalf Solicitor for the First Respondent: Ms Tran, Sparke Helmore Lawyers The Second Respondent: Giving a submitting appearance, save as to costs ORDERS
BRG 561 of 2024 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: GYK24
ApplicantAND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First RespondentADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE EGAN
DATE OF ORDER:
19 AUGUST 2025
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1.The name of the First Respondent be changed to “Minister for Immigration and Citizenship”.
2.The name of the Second Respondent be changed to “Administrative Review Tribunal”.
3.The Originating Application filed on 3 September 2024 be dismissed.
4.The applicant pay the First Respondent’s costs of and incidental to the Originating Application fixed in the amount of $6,500.
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 EGAN
The applicant is a resident of the Republic of Indonesia who applied for a Protection Visa under s. 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
On 2 December 2020, a delegate of the Minister refused the Visa Application on the basis that the applicant was not a person who was owed protection obligations pursuant to the provisions of s. 36(2)(a) or s. 36(2)(aa) of the Act. The applicant applied to the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) for review of the decision of the delegate.
On 24 July 2024, the applicant appeared before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments on his own behalf. He was assisted by an interpreter at the time.
On 31 July 2024, the Tribunal in its written reasons affirmed the decision of the delegate.
On 3 September 2024, the applicant filed an Originating Application for Review of the decision of the Tribunal.
GROUNDS OF REVIEW
At the time of the hearing before the Court, the Grounds of Review were as follows:
1.The Tribunal misconstrued the risk and fear of significant harm as set out in section 36(2A) of the Migration Act 1958.
2. The Tribunal construed erroneously (and narrowly) the existence of risk to life and fear of significant harm to the applicant upon his returns to Indonesia from the debt with the cooperative lending institution.
3. The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to make the said decision because its "reasonable satisfaction" not arrived in accordance with the provisions of the Migration Act
4. The Tribunal has failed to investigate applicant's claim, especially the grounds of persecution in Indonesia.
5. The second respondent failed to comply with the mandatory requirement under section 424A(read with section 424AA) of the Migration Act to give the applicant clear particulars of information it considered would be part of the reason for affirming the decision under review, to ensure the applicant understood why that information was relevant to the review and the consequence of its being relied upon, and to invite the applicant to comment upon or respond to that information.
At [4] – [8] of the reasons of the Tribunal, the Tribunal duly set out the refugee criterion under s. 5H of the Act, and what constituted a well-founded fear of persecution under s. 5J of the Act.
At [22] of its reasons, the Tribunal recorded the applicant’s claims as follows:
22. The applicant claimed before the primary decision was made that he is seeking protection in Australia, and cannot return to Indonesia for these reasons:
•He has 'a lot of debt' and he is stressed to the extent he was contemplating suicide.
•The applicant claimed to have experienced harm in Indonesia. In specifying the harm he claimed to have experienced before coming to Australia he stated: 'All people that I own money' [...] always push me to pay back. I need time but they do not understand. And its make me stress and got depressed.'
•The authorities will not assist him because his problem is a personal problem.
•His life is worse because he needs more than 2 jobs to repay his debts and survive in Indonesia.
•His creditors are always pushing him, and for that reason he decided to come to Australia to find a better life.
•If he returned to Indonesia no one will look after 'his condition.'
•He would be unable to relocate to another part of Indonesia where he would not be harmed because he will face the same problem there.
At [23] – [30] of its reasons, the Tribunal recorded its reservations about the applicant’s credibility, and why it found that the applicant had applied for a protection visa so as to extend his stay in Australia, and for the purpose of working and earning more money in Australia than he would have earned if he had remained in Indonesia. The reasons of the Tribunal in that regard were as follows:
23. Contrary to the information the applicant provided in the written protection application about his education, the applicant said he successfully completed high school in 2012 when he was 17 or 18 years old. In 2012 he enrolled in a university course to qualify to be a primary school teacher. After about 20 days he left the university because he was unable to pay the course fees. He had to earn money to support his parents, and younger sister and brother, and his grandparents.
24. The applicant said his father was a farmer who lived in a village and raised cattle for sale on farmland owned by his father, being the applicant's paternal grandfather.
25. Contrary to information the applicant provided in the written protection application about his
employment history, at hearing the applicant said in response to the Tribunal's questions that he was employed in various roles before he came to Australia, namely:
•Construction labourer.
•Driver.
•Debt collector.
•Motor vehicle workshop worker.
•Supermarket employee.
•Egg packer.
•Hospital cleaner.
•A permanent employee of a business that supplied meat and fish to hotels.
•During the period he was supplying meat and fish to hotels, he had sufficient funds to support members of his immediate family. He borrowed a substantial but unspecified sum of money to open two businesses that were next door to each other. One was a small laundromat, and the other one was a motorcycle repair shop. He said he established these businesses in partnership with his brother and a friend.
26. In evidence the applicant said both businesses failed after a short but unspecified period. The failure of the business left him and his brother in debt Their business partner and friend died; hence, responsibility for the debt was left to the applicant and his brother.
27. The applicant described meeting an agent in 2013 in respect of whom he provided no specific information, such as his name and address, and whether he was qualified to give assistance in relation to Australian migration law and visa requirements. The applicant said he borrowed 180 million Rupiah to pay the agent to assist him to obtain an Australian tourist visa. The applicant said it took a long time for the visa to be granted.
28. The applicant also said in evidence that the agent advised him that he could use a visitor visa to enter Australia, then he would be able to find employment and earn much more money than he could earn in Indonesia. The applicant also said the agent advised him he could extend his stay in Australia after his visitor visa expired and continue working by applying for a protection visa.
29. The applicant said in evidence that he followed the agent's advice and applied for a protection visa to extend his stay in Australia because he wanted to continue working and earning money to pay off his debts in Indonesia.
30. The Tribunal is satisfied the applicant applied for a protection visa to extend his stay for the purpose of working and earning more money in Australia than he would earn if he continued to reside and work in Indonesia.
At [31] – [41] of its reasons, the Tribunal recorded that after considering the DFAT Country Information Report Indonesia of 24 July 2023, it was satisfied that the unidentified co-operative said to be the applicant’s overbearing creditor was a legitimate lending institution.
At [42] – [45] of its reasons, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not have any well-founded fear of persecution as follows:
42. The evidence is insufficient to establish to the satisfaction of the Tribunal the existence of a real chance the applicant would be subject to serious harm for the reason of being indebted to a cooperative in his home country, or otherwise in debt, if he is removed to Indonesia now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
43. Having considered the applicant's claims individually and cumulatively, the evidence considered alone, and in conjunction with the DFAT report, is insufficient to establish to the satisfaction of the Tribunal the existence of a real chance the applicant would be subject to serious harm for any reason specified ins 5J(1)(a) of the Act, or for any other reason, if he is removed to Indonesia now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2)(a) of the Act.
44. Consequently, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for any of the reasons specified ins 5J(1) of the Act, or for any other reason. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant meets the definition of refugee as set out in s 5H of the Act.
45. The Tribunal notes separately from the foregoing findings, that the evidence indicates the applicant, by his application for a protection visa, knowingly misused the Australian protection visa system to extend his stay in Australia for the reason of financial betterment, and that he did not apply for protection because he feared he would be persecuted if he returned to his home country.
As a necessary consequence of its finding at [45] of its reasons, the Tribunal at [46] – [53] of its reasons found that the applicant was not owed any complimentary protection obligations.
As to the grounds of review, such grounds are unparticularised claims which do not allow the Court to appropriately conduct an adjudication of the merits of the applicant’s case. The Court is not prepared to act as the advocate for the applicant. Neither should the Court be called upon to anticipate particularised grounds of review in vacuo. To do so would be contrary to public policy. [1]Accordingly, the grounds of review are without merit and demonstrate no jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal, thereby justifying dismissal of the claim.
[1] BUP24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 785 at [9] – [19]
DEZ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 240 at [37] per Flick J;
Hamod v New South Wales [2011] NSWCA 375 at [309] – [316] per Beazley JA; SZRKG v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 1389 at [22] per Farrel J; and WZAVW v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2016] FCA 760 at [35] per Gilmore J.
Further, based on the evidence of the applicant, it was open for the Tribunal to find that the relevant protection obligations were not enlivened because the applicant’s reason for entry into Australia, and his continued residence in Australia, was based upon his desire to enhance his personal financial situation, rather than any fear of persecution or harm which might attend his return to Indonesia. None of the grounds of review, even if massaged in the most favourable of ways, overcomes the applicant’s illegitimate misuse of Australia’s migration regime. That is another reason why each of the grounds of review is without merit, and why it warrants the dismissal of the application for review.
And it is so ordered.
I certify that the preceding sixteen (15) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Egan. Associate:
Dated: 19 August 2025
0
5
1