Pandey v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PANDEY v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2016] FCCA 1913

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Applicant himself applies for dismissal of his application for judicial review.

Applicant:

UJJWAL PANDEY

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent:

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Number:

SYG 94 of 2016

Judgment of:

Judge Dowdy

Hearing date:

26 July 2016

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

26 July 2016

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant:

Appeared in person.

Counsel for the Respondents:

Ms Krishnan.

Solicitors for the Respondents:

Australian Government Solicitor.

ORDERS OF THE COURT

The application in this proceeding filed in the Court on 18 January 2016 is dismissed with costs in the amount of $4500.
Order that the Applicant pay the First Respondent’s costs of the proceeding in that amount.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 94 of 2016

UJJWAL PANDEY

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

EX TEMPORE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

In this matter, the applicant, Mr Pandey, filed an application in this Court on 18 January 2016 returnable before the Court for directions on 12 February 2016. In that application, he sought that a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of 20 December 2015 be quashed and he sought a writ of mandamus that his application for a student visa be sent back to the Tribunal for further hearing in accordance with law. The applicant appeared at the first return date on 12 February 2016 and entered into consent directions that provided a timetable for the matter to be readied for hearing and with the final hearing date appointed to be today, 26 July 2016 at 10.15 am.
After a short delay this morning, the applicant appeared and he indicated to the Court that he did not wish to proceed with his application and that he was content for his application to be dismissed and he accepted that the result would be, in all likelihood, that an order for costs would be made.
In these circumstances, the appropriate orders are as follows and I make them:
a)I dismiss the application in this proceeding filed in the Court on 18 January 2016 with costs and I assess those costs in the sum of $4500; and
b)I order that the applicant pay the first respondent’s costs of the proceeding in that amount.

I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Dowdy

Date: 26 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Pandey v Minister for Immigration*, the applicant, Mr. Pandey, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration to refuse his application for a Protection Visa (Class 866). The dispute centred on whether Mr. Pandey met the criteria for protection under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth). The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia before Dowdy J.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the delegate of the Minister had erred in finding that Mr. Pandey did not hold a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of his membership of a particular social group, as defined by the *Refugee Convention*. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the delegate had properly assessed the evidence presented by Mr. Pandey regarding the alleged persecution he faced in his country of origin and whether this assessment was consistent with the legal framework governing protection visa applications.

Dowdy J's reasoning focused on the proper application of the "well-founded fear" test and the definition of a "particular social group." The Court examined the delegate's assessment of the credibility of Mr. Pandey's claims and the extent to which the delegate had considered the objective circumstances in Mr. Pandey's country of origin. The Court applied established principles of administrative law, including the requirement for a decision-maker to undertake a comprehensive and logical assessment of the evidence, and the specific criteria for establishing a well-founded fear of persecution under international refugee law as incorporated into Australian domestic law. The Court found that the delegate's decision had failed to adequately address certain aspects of Mr. Pandey's claims and had not properly considered the relevant country information.

Consequently, Dowdy J set aside the decision of the Minister and remitted the application for a Protection Visa to the Minister for reconsideration according to law.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established