Federal Court of Australia

EUC19 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 364

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The appeal be dismissed.

2.    The appellants pay the respondents’ costs of the proceeding as agreed or taxed.

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

SHARIFF J:

1.    INTRODUCTION

1    These reasons relate to an appeal from the decision of the primary judge in EUC19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCCA 568 (Primary Judgment or PJ).

2    The appellants filed a Notice of Appeal on 22 April 2021 (Notice of Appeal). For unexplained reasons, these proceedings were not docketed to me until late-December 2025. The appellants have now been in Australia since May 2012. Irrespective of whether they had, or have, a right to remain in Australia (which is not a matter for this Court to determine), the delay occasioned is regrettable.

3    Following a case management hearing attended by the appellants and the first respondent on 5 February 2026 and given that the appellants were unrepresented, I ordered that the first respondent file his written submissions prior to the appellants and listed the matter for hearing on 24 March 2026. I did this to ensure that the appellants had every opportunity to present their best case. The appellants did not avail themselves of the opportunity to file written submissions.

4    For the following reasons, I am satisfied that the appeal should be dismissed.

2.    BACKGROUND

5    The appellants are citizens of the People’s Republic of China (China). The first appellant is the father of the second appellant. The appellants arrived in Australia in May 2012 after being granted a TU 571 Student visa (in the case of the second appellant) and a TU 580 Student Guardian visa (in the case of the first appellant). Upon the expiry of these visas in March 2015, the appellants became unlawful non-citizens. On 8 May 2015, the first appellant applied for a Protection (Class XA – subclass 866) visa (Protection Visa) with the second appellant included as a dependent applicant.

6    In short, the first appellant claims that he fears being arrested upon his return to China on the basis of an online thread he posted criticising the relevant district authorities after they removed residents in his village from their homes and demolished their properties for development. The first appellant claims that his wife has been detained twice in relation to this incident and that following his online post, the police issued an inquiry notice requiring him to accept investigation upon his return to China.

7    On 7 September 2016, a delegate of the first respondent (Delegate) refused to grant the Protections Visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) on the basis that the appellants did not satisfy s 36(2) of the Act. The appellants sought merits review of the Delegate’s decision in the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal). On 8 November 2019, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Delegate not to grant the appellants’ Protection Visas (Tribunal Decision), primarily on the basis of the following credibility concerns with the appellants’ claims:

(a)    during the first Tribunal hearing, the first appellant provided significantly different timeframes as to key events facing his wife following the property resumption, as compared with the timeframes indicated in his written Protection Visa application;

(b)    the first appellant provided inconsistent evidence as to where his wife was living in the period immediately before the property was resumed and demolished;

(c)    the first appellant provided inconsistent evidence as to who lived in the now demolished property;

(d)    the second appellant did not corroborate claims that the family property was demolished and his mother detained in the period immediately after he returned from China at the end of September 2014;

(e)    the first appellant has not provided any documentary evidence of the contents of the criticisms of the Chinese authorities that he claims to have published online concerning the property demolition and subsequent difficulties faced by his wife; and

(f)    it is unsupported speculation on the part of the appellants that the accident involving the first appellant’s father was “payback” for the first appellant complaining about the property resumption and demolition.

8    The appellants subsequently sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision in the proceedings below. In their Initiating Application filed on 2 December 2019, the appellants alleged the following jurisdictional errors:

Ground One

The Tribunal may not fully understand some of the applicants’ situations, which led to doubts of credibility of applicants

Ground Two

Tribunal did not treat my case fairly. Considering it happened a few years ago, some minor inconsistency should be acceptable. Tribunal emphasised too much on my minor inconsistency for the purpose of doubting my credibility.

Ground Three

The Tribunal asked misleading questions to the second applicant, which led to the doubt of my credibility.

Ground Four

Tribunal did not properly consider evidences in support of my claims

(Grounds One, Two, Three and Four, respectively)

9    The appellants did not file any written submissions in support of their grounds for judicial review in the proceedings below. However, the first appellant made oral submissions to the effect that he believed that he was asked misleading and irrelevant questions by the Tribunal, and the Court explained that the Tribunal was entitled to ask him questions to test the veracity of his claims: PJ [26].

10    The primary judge found that Grounds One, Three and Four (see [6] above) failed on the basis that they were “bland assertion[s] of jurisdictional error which in the absence of particulars must fail” and/or invited “impermissible merits review”: PJ [35]; [37]-[38]. His Honour found that Ground Two failed on the basis that the Court was “not satisfied that the credibility findings of the Tribunal were attended by any failure to afford procedural fairness, or reaching findings without a logical or probative basis or subject to legal unreasonableness”: PJ [36]. The primary judge noted that since the appellants’ were unrepresented, the Court “carefully considered the totality of the Tribunal decision, but was unable to ascertain any an unarticulated jurisdictional error”: PJ [40]. Accordingly, the primary judge dismissed the appellants’ application.

11    By the Notice of Appeal, the appellants challenge the decision of the primary judge on two grounds:

1.    There exists unfairness.

Tribunal did not fully consider the first appellant 's claims.

Tribunal asked the first appellant misleading questions.

The first appellant was not given a chance to fully represent his claims in the court.

2.    Some claims were not considered properly.

Some claims in favour of the appellant were ignored by the judge.

12    These grounds will be referred to as Ground 1 and Ground 2.

3.    GROUND 1

13    As in the proceedings below, the appellants did not file written submissions. At the hearing before me, the appellants made limited oral submissions to the effect that in the hearing before the Tribunal, the appellants did not understand some aspects of the translation being provided by the translator present at that hearing. Other than making a general comment about a mistranslation as to paternal and maternal grandparents, the appellants did not identify any other specific part of the translation that was said to have pointed to error in the Tribunal’s reasons, let alone those of the primary judge.

14    I am not satisfied that any error on the part of the primary judge has been established. The four errors alleged by the appellants within the scope of Ground 1 are wholly unparticularised. Moreover, they assert a general level of unfairness arising from the Tribunal hearing, as opposed to pointing to error in the primary judge’s reasons. The complaints made by the appellants as to the unfair and misleading questions asked by the Tribunal were considered by the primary judge, but rejected on a review of the whole of the materials before his Honour. No error is disclosed.

15    The balance of the complaints made by the appellants within the scope of Ground 1, including those made in oral submissions, misunderstand the role of this Court on appeal. The onus fell on the appellants to establish before the primary judge that the conduct of the hearing before the Tribunal, including the translation, gave rise to error. There is no transcript of the Tribunal hearing. Further, there is nothing on the face of the Tribunal’s reasons that demonstrates any "misleading" questions by the Tribunal at the Tribunal hearing or that the Tribunal misunderstood any key aspect of the appellants’ evidence or submissions. The reasons for the Tribunal Decision disclose that the Tribunal properly considered the appellants’ claims. The primary judge came to the same conclusion. The appellants have not established any error in those reasons.

16    Accordingly, Ground 1 is dismissed.

4.    GROUND 2

17    Ground 2 makes an unparticularised assertion that the primary judge did not consider the appellants’ claims and that some such claims in favour of the appellants were ignored by the primary judge.

18    In the absence of any written submissions or oral articulation of the claims in question, the contentions advanced by the appellants are lacking in any detail. That was the same position that prevailed before the primary judge, who also determined the matter in the absence of any written submissions or any developed argument. I am not satisfied that any error has been established.

19    Accordingly, Ground 2 fails.

5.    DISPOSITION

20    In view of the preceding reasons, I will make orders that:

(a)    the appeal be dismissed;

(b)    the appellants pay the respondents’ costs of the proceeding as agreed or taxed.

Associate:

Dated:    27 March 2026