CZH25 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FedCFamC2G 266

Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 24.04(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 24.04 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth).

1. This is an application for a constitutional writ in respect of a decision of the Administrative Review Tribunal made on 21 February 2025, affirming a decision of the delegate not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
2. The applicant was found to be a national of Malaysia and first travelled to Australia between 9 and 23 April 2017. The applicant last arrived in Australia on 10 March 2019 and has not since departed. The applicant applied for a protection visa on 10 April 2019. The applicant identified his background and claimed to fear harm in his application because of gangsters. The Tribunal sent the applicant a hearing invitation, and the applicant attended on 10 February 2025 to give evidence and present arguments.
3. The Tribunal recorded the applicant's background, and the applicant identified that the protection visa was prepared by someone else. The applicant identified concern as to finding a job if he returned to Malaysia. The applicant also identified that the moneylenders from whom he borrowed had been repaid, and the applicant said that the grounds in his protection visa application were fake.
4. The Tribunal correctly identified the relevant law and set out relevant country information. The Tribunal found that the applicant's claims to fear harm in his protection visa were not genuine. The Tribunal found that there was no real chance of harm to the applicant in the reasonably foreseeable future because of anything in his protection visa application. The Tribunal found, having taken into account the applicant's evidence, that there was no real chance of harm to the applicant in the reasonably foreseeable future if returned to Malaysia because of moneylenders, given that the Tribunal found the applicant does not owe any money to moneylenders at the date of the hearing.
5. The Tribunal identified the applicant's educational background and his work history. The Tribunal found the applicant's work history had been solid and consistent, as a result of which the Tribunal found, taking into account the country information, the applicant would be able to obtain work in Malaysia. The Tribunal found the applicant does not face a real chance of harm due to economic hardship in the reasonably foreseeable future if he returned to Malaysia, given that the Tribunal had found he would be able to obtain work on return.
6. The Tribunal found that the applicant would not suffer economic hardship or be denied the capacity to earn a livelihood of a kind such that the applicant's capacity to subsist would be threatened. The Tribunal found the applicant is not a person with respect of whom Australia's protection obligations under s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"). The Tribunal found that the applicant is not a person in respect of whom Australia's protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa) of the Act and affirmed the decision under review.
7. The grounds in the application are as follows:
   1. The decision made to refuse my Protection Visa application by the decision maker has a jurisdictional error.
   2. The decision maker's statement about the applicant not facing harm when returned to Malaysia is purely based on his/her personal opinion and not on any facts.
8. At the commencement of the hearing, with the benefit of an interpreter, the Court explained to the applicant the steps that would be followed and then explained to the applicant the nature of the hearing, and the applicant confirmed he understood what was said by the Court. The applicant orally submitted that what was in his protection visa application had been fake, and candidly identified that he wanted to stay.
9. The Court explained to the applicant that it doesn't have power to revisit the application on the merits. Sadly, the applicant's candour in this regard does not assist the Court in identifying any jurisdictional error.
10. The first ground in the application is incapable of identifying any jurisdictional error on its face. The Tribunal's decision was logical and rational, and the Tribunal provided an intelligible justification for the adverse finding. The Tribunal clearly engaged with the claims that the applicant had initially made, which the applicant conceded were fake. The Tribunal considered the applicant's claim in relation to his expressed concern about work if returned to Malaysia, and taking into account country information, the applicant's work history made adverse findings that were open to the Tribunal for the reasons given by the Tribunal. Nothing in ground 1 makes out any jurisdictional error.
11. In relation to ground 2, there is no basis to find that the Tribunal determined the matter based on personal opinion and not facts. The Tribunal's reasons contradict any such proposition to the extent that it is advanced that the Tribunal had in some way approached the review with a closed mind. There is no basis to support such a contention. On the face of the material before the Court, the Tribunal approached the review with an open mind reasonably capable of persuasion as to the merits.
12. This is not a case where there has been any conduct identified by reason of which a fair minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the Tribunal might not bring an independent and impartial mind to the determination of the matter on its merits. Ground 2, properly understood, is a disagreement with the merits of the decision and does not identify any jurisdictional error. The Court finds there is no jurisdictional error disclosed by ground 2.
13. It is for these reasons the Court makes the above orders.

I certify that the preceding thirteen (13) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment of Judge Street.