BJO18 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

• Jurisdiction: Australia Federal only
• Court: Full Federal Court (Australia)
• Judgment Date: 09 November 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] FCAFC 189
• Date: 09 November 2020

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BJO18 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCAFC 189

Appeal from:	BJO18 v Minister for Home Affairs & Anor [2019] FCCA 1616
File number:	VID 779 of 2019
Judges:	MURPHY, O'CALLAGHAN AND SNADEN JJ
Date of judgment:	9 November 2020
Catchwords:	MIGRATION – appeal from a decision of the Federal Circuit Court which dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) – whether the primary judge erred by failing to find that the IAA engaged in irrational or illogical reasoning in making its findings as to the credibility or probity of the appellant’s evidence – whether the primary judge erred by failing to find that the IAA failed to apply the appropriate predictive test in relation to whether there is a real chance the appellant will face serious harm on return to Pakistan – whether the primary judge erred in failing to provide adequate reasons for the dismissal of the appellant’s application for judicial review – appeal dismissed
Legislation:	Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – pt 7AA – ss 36, 473BA, 473DC, 473DD and 473FA Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Act 2014 (Cth)
Cases cited:	ABT v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2020] HCA 34 AKH16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 47; (2019) 269 FCR 168 AON15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 48; (2019) 269 FCR 184 ARG15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 174; (2016) 250 FCR 109 ASB17 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 38; (2016) 268 FCR 271 AVQ15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 133; (2018) 266 FCR 83; (2018) 361 ALR 227 AYX17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 103; (2018) 262 FCR 317 BTF15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 647; (2016) 69 AAR 376 BZD17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 94; (2018) 263 FCR 292 CCQ17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1641 CGA15 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 46; (2019) 268 FCR 362 Chan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1989] HCA 62; (1989) 169 CLR 379 Chan Yee Kin v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1989] HCA 62; (1989) 169 CLR 379 CQG15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 146; (2016) 253 FCR 496 CQY16 v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2017] FCCA 236 CRU18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCAFC 129 DAO16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 2; (2018) 258 FCR 175 DGZ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) 258 FCR 551 DPI17 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 43; (2019) 269 FCR 134 DYS16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 33; (2018) 260 FCR 260 Fernando v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 962 Hossain v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] HCA 34; (2018) 264 CLR 123 Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 53; (2019) 269 FCR 464 Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v MZYTS [2013] FCAFC 114; (2013) 230 FCR 431 Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Singh (2014) 231 FCR 437 Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZMTA [2019] HCA 3; (2019) 264 CLR 421 Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZUXN [2016] FCA 516; (2016) 69 AAR 210 Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZVFW [2017] FCAFC 33; (2017) 248 FCR Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS [2010] HCA 16; (2010) 240 CLR 610 Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo [1997] HCA 22; (1997) 191 CLR 559 Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang [1996] HCA 6; (1996) 185 CLR 259 NAFF of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] HCA 62; (2004) 221 CLR 1 Plaintiff M174/2016 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) 264 CLR 217 S395/2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] HCA 71; (2003) 216 CLR 473 SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] HCA 63; (2006) 228 CLR 152 VAAD v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCAFC 117
Date of hearing:	12 November 2019
Registry:
Division:
National Practice Area:
Category:	Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	184
Counsel for the Appellant:	Mr J Burnside QC and Mr I Cowen
Solicitor for the Appellant:	De Novo Legal
Counsel for the First Respondent:	Mr V Murano
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Counsel for the Second Respondent:	The Second Respondent filed a submitting notice

ORDERS

		VID 779 of 2019
BETWEEN:	BJO18 Appellant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS First Respondent ; IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY Second Respondent

JUDGES:	MURPHY, O'CALLAGHAN AND SNADEN JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	9 NOVEMBER 2020

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The name of the first respondent be amended to Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs.

2. The appeal be dismissed.

3. The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of the appeal in a sum to be assessed in accordance with the court’s Costs Practice Note (GPN-COSTS) if not agreed.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

MURPHY J:

Introduction

1. The appellant, a citizen of Pakistan, appeals from a judgment of the Federal Circuit Court, which dismissed his application for judicial review of a decision of the second respondent, the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA). The IAA had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent, the Minister for Home Affairs (Minister) to refuse to grant the appellant a Temporary Protection (Class XD) (subclass 785) visa (the visa).

2. By an amended notice of appeal filed on 11 October 2019 the appellant alleges that the primary judge erred:

1. by failing to find that the IAA fell into jurisdictional error by:

1. engaging in irrational or illogical reasoning in making findings as to the appellant’s credibility; and

2. failing to undertake the...