CCE21 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 2160

1. This is an Application for judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) dated 6 July 2021, affirming a decision of a delegate of the first respondent (the delegate) to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection (Class XA) (Subclass 866) visa (the visa).
2. For the reasons set out below, the Application must be dismissed.

1. The applicant is a citizen of Malaysia.
2. On 29 December 2017, the applicant applied for the visa. The applicant claimed he ran a car workshop business in Malaysia and was unable to repay money he had borrowed from an illegal money lender.
3. On 21 May 2018, the delegate refused to grant the applicant the visa.
4. On 22 May 2018, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate's decision.
5. On 22 June 2021, the applicant appeared before the Tribunal with the assistance of an interpreter. The applicant gave evidence and presented arguments.
6. On 25 June 2021, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to not grant the applicant the visa.

1. The Tribunal identified the issue for review as whether the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations as outlined in s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2) (aa) of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
2. At [14], the Tribunal found that the applicant's written and oral evidence, as contained in his protection visa application, was false. At [16], the Tribunal further recorded that the applicant had entered Australia as a visitor and was subsequently informed by a friend that he could apply for a work visa.
3. At [19]-[20], when asked why the applicant wanted to stay, he said it was to earn more money and because he likes Australia. Regarding fears of returning to Malaysia, the applicant cited lack of work and COVID-19 restrictions.
4. At [21], the Tribunal found the applicant's credibility was undermined by false claims to the Department, though his assertion that he came to Australia for work were likely true.
5. At [28]-[29] the Tribunal considered whether the applicant might belong to a social group affected by poverty in Malaysia due to low education and income, despite there being no express claim. The Tribunal noted the applicant had not sought work elsewhere in Malaysia and further rejected his claim that caring for his mother prevented relocation, observing the applicant had travelled to Australia and his brother was caring for their mother [30].
6. The Tribunal expressed concern over the applicant's vague responses and his lack of full explanation for adverse circumstances and found that he had shown resourcefulness in securing overseas employment and could likely find work in Johor or elsewhere in Malaysia [30].
7. At [31]-[32], the Tribunal found the applicant did not claim to fear persecution and there was no evidence he would be denied basic services or the ability to earn a livelihood. The Tribunal noted Malaysia had implemented national measures to curb COVID-19 and support economic recovery, and that on return to Malaysia he would be in the same position as his family. Accordingly, the Tribunal was not satisfied there was a real chance of harm to the applicant due to membership of a social group of uneducated, low-income persons [33]-[34].
8. At [35]-[37], the Tribunal found the applicant's financial concerns did not amount to a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal concluded he was not owed protection under s 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Act and affirmed the decision under review [38]-[41].

1. The applicant advances one ground of judicial review contained in an Originating Application filed with the Court on 6 November 2024. The sole ground of judicial review is as follows:
   1. THE NON CITIZEN LIFE IS IN DANGER.
2. The applicant also included the following statement in his application for judicial review under the heading 'Final orders sought by the applicant/s':
   1. DECISION MADE WAS LAWFULLY ERROR
3. The Court will consider this as being a ground for judicial review.
4. In considering the above grounds, the Court notes that these grounds appear to be template grounds as they have appeared in a number other applications the Court has considered recently, including the same grammatical and syntax errors. There appears to be an inference that these grounds of judicial review have simply been copied from other matters.

1. The applicant appeared before the Court unrepresented and was assisted by a Malaysian interpreter.
2. Prior to the hearing commencing, the Court ensured he was in possession of a copy of the relevant Court Book and ensured that the respondent's written submissions had been translated to him. The Court also ensured the applicant had access to a pen and paper so he could take notes during the course of the hearing if he so wish to.
3. At the commencement of the hearing, the Court explained it was undertaking judicial review, not merits review, and the difference between the two types of review. The Court also explained the procedure by which the hearing would be undertaken. The applicant was advised, as the Court was delivering its reasons for judgment ex-tempore, or orally, he could request a written copy of the reasons of the Court, simply by contacting the associate.
4. Despite Court orders, no written submissions or other materials were provided to the Court by the applicant, in support of his case.
5. The applicant told the Court that he came to Australia to work, as he had a large family, and he needed to support them in Malaysia. The applicant acknowledged that the material contained in his application for the was false. The applicant was asked what legal error there was in the Tribunal decision if he did not fear going back to Malaysia for refugee reasons. The was unable to articulate an answer.
6. The applicant was advised that the Court would likely be bound to find against him if he were unable to state that there was an error in the decision. The applicant was given the option of withdrawing his application or continuing. The applicant chose to continue. When the applicant was asked if he wished to say anything in respect of the grounds of judicial review contained within the Originating Application, he told the Court he had nothing to say.

1. The respondent submitted that the sole ground of judicial review, being that the non-citizen life is in danger, does not assert any jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal. Further, the assertion that the decision was made "lawfully error," is non-descript, and does not state what the error was. The respondent submitted that the applicant should be asked, or should be afforded the opportunity to explain, orally, why he claims the Tribunal's decision is affected by error, which the Court allowed him to do: DQQ17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 784 at [9].
2. It was submitted that at the Tribunal hearing, the applicant withdrew his written claims, stating that he did not wish to return to Malaysia due to lack of work in COVID-19 restrictions [20]. The Tribunal considered these claims and assessed whether or not the applicant belonged to a social group of uneducated, low-income persons, and found there was no real chance of serious harm on return [32]-[34]. The Tribunal also found that there would be no real risk of significant harm if the applicant were to be removed to Malaysia [35]-[37]. These findings were open on the applicant's evidence at hearing [17]-[20], and relevant country information at [23]-[26].
3. Further, the Tribunal complied with its obligations under Division 4 of Part 7 of the Act. The Tribunal invited the applicant to appear and give evidence under s 425, and there was no information which triggered the requirements s 424A of the Act. The Tribunal considered the claims under s 423A, noting the applicant had withdrawn his original claims and, despite credibility concerns, accepted his explanation that he came to Australia for work [21].

1. The task of a Court conducting judicial review was considered by the Full Federal Court in Djokovic v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 3 at [17], where the following was said:

... an application for judicial review is one in which the judicial branch of government reviews, by reference to legality or lawfulness, the decision or decisions of the Executive branch of government, here in the form of a decision of the Minister. The Court does not consider the merits or wisdom of the decision; nor does it remake the decision. The task of the Court is to rule upon the lawfulness or legality of the decision by reference to the complaints made about it.

1. The applicant's sole ground of judicial review is that the non-citizen life is in danger. If grounds of judicial review are not supported by particulars, for that reason alone, they are liable for dismissal: WZAVW v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2015] FCA 760.
2. This ground of judicial review is not supported by any particulars, and for that reason alone, is liable for dismissal. The ground itself is not a proper ground of judicial review, rather it seeks to express vehement disagreement with the outcome arrived at by the Tribunal. This is in circumstances where the applicant freely admitted to the Tribunal, and confirmed in this Court, that his life is not in danger if he returns to Malaysia, and he is staying in Australia for the purposes of obtaining more highly remunerated employment. As it is not a proper ground of judicial review and simply seeks for the Court to engage in impermissible merits review, the ground has no merit.
3. As to the applicant's assertion under the heading 'Final orders sought by the applicant/s', namely that the decision was 'made lawfully error', even when generously construed as a ground of judicial review, it lacks merit. First, they are no particulars as to what error was made. Second, there is no evidence of any lack of procedural fairness, or other jurisdictional error in the Tribunal decision record, and accompanying papers. Further, the applicant was not able to articulate any jurisdictional error. The assertion that the Tribunal decision contained an error, has no merit.
4. As the applicant is unrepresented, the Court has also considered both the Tribunal decision record and the Court Book and is unable to ascertain any unarticulated jurisdictional error.

1. Accordingly, the application must be dismissed.

I certify that the preceding thirty-nine (39) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge D Humphreys.