MBJY v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1109
File number(s):
PEG 85 of 2025
Judgment of:
JUDGE LIVERIS
Date of judgment:
6 June 2025
Catchwords:
MIGRATION – REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TRIBUNAL – protection visa – applicant self-represented – matter has a migration history and visa history – allegations of loan lenders with high profile gangsters – whether the Tribunal misconstrued significant harm – whether the Tribunal’s decision was legally unreasonable – jurisdictional error not established – application dismissed with costs
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – APPLICATION FOR AN ADJOURNMENT OF THE HEARING – where the applicant would like to be legally represented – where there is no certainty of legal representation – where the discretion to adjourn the hearing is not enlivened
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:
MBJY
Applicant
AND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE LIVERIS
DATE OF ORDER:
6 JUNE 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application made by the applicant for an adjournment of the hearing on 5 June 2025 be dismissed.
2.The name of the of first respondent will be amended to Minister for Immigration and Citizenship.
3.The application filed on 26 February 2025 be dismissed.
4.The applicant pay the Respondent's costs fixed in…
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 MBJY v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
MBJY v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1109
Case
[2025] FedCFamC2G 1109
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of MBJY v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship involves an applicant seeking judicial review of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The applicant, MBJY, is appealing a decision regarding their protection visa application. The matter has a complex migration and visa history, involving allegations of the applicant's association with loan lenders linked to high-profile gangsters. The central legal issues revolve around whether the Tribunal incorrectly interpreted the concept of significant harm and whether the decision of the Tribunal was legally unreasonable. Additionally, the case touches upon an application for an adjournment of the hearing, where the applicant expressed a desire to be legally represented, but there was no certainty of such representation. The court had to determine if the discretion to adjourn the hearing was appropriately exercised.
In addressing the merits of the case, the court examined whether the Tribunal's interpretation of significant harm was erroneous and whether this error rendered the decision legally unreasonable. The court meticulously reviewed the evidence and submissions presented to both the Tribunal and the court. The court found that the Tribunal's interpretation was not misconstrued and that the decision was not legally unreasonable. Furthermore, the court considered the application for an adjournment, highlighting that the discretion to adjourn was not applicable given the lack of certainty regarding the applicant's legal representation. Consequently, the application for an adjournment was dismissed.
Based on the court's findings, the appeal was dismissed, and the application for costs was granted. The court concluded that the Tribunal's decision was legally sound and that no jurisdictional error was established. The court also determined that the application for an adjournment was not properly founded, given the absence of a firm commitment to legal representation. This decision reinforces the principle that adjournments should be granted sparingly, particularly when there is no guarantee of legal representation. The final orders of the court reflect these conclusions, affirming the dismissal of the appeal and the imposition of costs against the applicant.