HOU24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship - [2025] FedCFamC2G 1111

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
HOU24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1111

File number(s): PEG 349 of 2024

Judgment of: JUDGE LIVERIS

Date of judgment: 27 May 2025

Catchwords: MIGRATION – REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TRIBUNAL – protection visa – applicant self-represented – whether Tribunal erred in considering the applicant’s claim to experience harm as a result of her sexual identity – whether the Tribunal’s decision was legally unreasonable – whether the Tribunal denied the applicant procedural fairness - jurisdictional error not established – application dismissed with costs

Legislation:
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 5J(5), 36

Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021

Cases cited:
BKT17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 384

Djokovic v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 3

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZJSS (2010) 243 CLR 164

Abebe v Commonwealth of Australia [1999] HCA 14

Randhawa v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs [1994] FCA 1253; (1994) 52 FCR 437

SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] HCA 63

SZRUI v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs & Citizenship [2013] FCAFC 80

Division: Division 2 General Federal Law

Number of paragraphs: 51

Date of hearing: 27 May 2025

Place: Perth

Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appearing in person

Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms Ismailjee

Counsel for the Second Respondent: Submitting appearance, save as to costs

Solicitor for the Respondents: Sparke Helmore
ORDERS

PEG 349 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
HOU24

Applicant

AND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE LIVERIS

DATE OF ORDER:

27 MAY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The name of the first respondent be amended to read “Minister for Immigration and Citizenship”.
2.The application filed by the applicant on 24 September 2024 be dismissed.
3.The applicant pay the Minister’s costs fixed in the sum 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).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE LIVERIS

The applicant is a citizen of Malaysia. She arrived in Australia on 10 May 2016 pursuant to a UD-601 Electronic Travel Authority visa.
Between 2016 and 2018, the applicant departed and re-entered Australia, and on 23 April 2018, she applied for a Class XA Subclass 866 protection visa. She claimed that she was living under a shadow and pressure because she is homosexual, and people around her, her neighbours,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading HOU24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Details

AGLC: HOU24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1111
Case: [2025] FedCFamC2G 1111
Decision Date: 27 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter involved the applicant, HOU24, who sought a review of a decision by the Administrative Review Tribunal that dismissed their application for a protection visa. The applicant, who was self-represented, alleged that the Tribunal had erred in its consideration of their claim of experiencing harm due to their sexual identity. The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether the Tribunal's decision was legally unreasonable and if the applicant was denied procedural fairness. The Court had to consider if the Tribunal had made a jurisdictional error in its assessment.

The primary legal issues centred around whether the Tribunal erred in its evaluation of the applicant's claim and if procedural fairness was denied. The applicant argued that the Tribunal failed to appropriately consider their claim of harm related to their sexual identity, suggesting that the Tribunal did not give sufficient weight to the evidence presented. Additionally, the applicant contended that they were denied procedural fairness due to the Tribunal's handling of the case.

In addressing these issues, the Court found that the Tribunal had properly considered the applicant's claims and evidence. The Court determined that the Tribunal's decision was not legally unreasonable and did not constitute a jurisdictional error. The Court further held that the applicant was not denied procedural fairness. The evidence presented did not support the applicant's assertions of harm, and the Tribunal's decision was based on a comprehensive assessment of the facts and law applicable to the case.

The Court dismissed the application with costs, affirming the Tribunal's decision. The Court found that the applicant had not established a basis for overturning the Tribunal's determination and upheld the integrity of the administrative review process.

Orders