Legal Research
Cases
HXC24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

HXC24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Case [2025] FedCFamC2G 963 27 May 2025

Admissibility of Evidence

Immigration & Refugee Law

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
HXC24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 963

File number(s): PEG 364 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 the Tribunal was affected by apprehended bias – whether the Tribunal denied the applicant procedural fairness – whether the Tribunal failed to take evidence into account – no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed with costs

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – APPLICATION FOR AN ADJOURNMENT AND REFERRAL FOR LEGAL ASSISTANCE – where the applicant took recent steps to seek legal assistance – where there is no certainty of legal representation – where a party has no right to apply for a referral for legal assistance – where the discretion to adjourn the hearing or refer the applicant for legal assistance is not enlivened

Legislation:
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) Division 4 of Part 7

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 36(2)(a), 36(2)(aa)

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Division 2 (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 r 12.01, 12.02, Schedule 2, Part 2, Division 1 Item 3

Cases cited:
AJR24 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FedCFamC2G 1237

Bhandari v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FedCFamC2G 60

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

DQQ17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 784

GPG18 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FedCFamC2G 1120

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

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

Division: Division 2 General Federal Law

Number of paragraphs: 67

Date of hearing: 27 May 2025

Place: Perth

Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person

Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr Mayne

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

Solicitor for the Respondents: Sparke Helmore
ORDERS

PEG 364 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
HXC24

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 interlocutory application filed by the applicant on 2 May 2025 be dismissed.
2.The name of the first respondent be amended to read “Minister for Immigration and
3.Citizenship”.
4.The application filed by the applicant on 4 October 2024 be dismissed.
5.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…

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 HXC24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Details

AGLC: HXC24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 963
Case: [2025] FedCFamC2G 963
Decision Date: 27 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, HXC24, appealed against a decision of the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) which refused to grant him a protection visa. The ART concluded that HXC24 had not satisfied the criteria necessary for the grant of such a visa. HXC24 argued that the ART was affected by apprehended bias, that he was denied procedural fairness, and that the ART failed to take certain evidence into account. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the court were whether the ART was affected by apprehended bias, whether HXC24 was denied procedural fairness, and whether the ART failed to take certain evidence into account. The court examined the reasons of the ART to determine whether there was any basis for the alleged bias or procedural unfairness. The court also considered whether the ART had erred in failing to give proper weight to the evidence provided by the applicant.

The court found that the applicant had not established any jurisdictional error in the ART's decision. The court held that the reasons of the ART did not support the applicant's claim of apprehended bias or procedural unfairness. The court also held that the ART had not failed to take evidence into account as the applicant had not demonstrated that the evidence was significant or that it would have made a difference to the outcome of the case. The court dismissed the application with costs.

The court also noted that the applicant's application for an adjournment and referral for legal assistance was not successful. The court held that the applicant had no right to apply for a referral for legal assistance and that the discretion to adjourn the hearing was not enlivened. The court further held that the applicant's recent steps to seek legal assistance did not provide any certainty of legal representation.

Orders