Federal Court of Australia

EVG19 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1126

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The appeal be dismissed.

2.    The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs as agreed or assessed.

3.    The first respondent’s name be changed to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship.

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered ex tempore, revised from transcript)

WIGNEY J:

1    The appellant, who has been given the pseudonym EVG19, is a citizen of Nepal. He arrived in Australia as long ago as November 2015. A few months later, he applied for a protection visa. A delegate of the respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, refused to grant the appellant that visa. The appellant applied for a merits review of that decision in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, however the Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision. The appellant sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision in the Federal Circuit and Family of Australia (Division 2) (Circuit Court). The primary judge in the Circuit Court dismissed the appellant’s application with costs: see EVG19 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FedCFamC2G 678 (J). The appellant appealed that judgment to this Court.

2    It is unnecessary to provide a detailed account of the Tribunal’s decision for the purposes of this appeal. The judgment of the primary judge contains an accurate summary of that decision: see, in particular J at [8]-[15] and [44]-[50]. In short, the Tribunal was not satisfied that Australia owed any protection obligations to the appellant, that being the key criteria for the grant of a protection visa: see ss 36(2)(a) and 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), read together with the relevant definitional provisions, including ss 5, 5H, 5J and 5L of the Act.

3    The Tribunal was not satisfied that the appellant was owed protection obligations essentially because it did not accept that the appellant had given a truthful or credible account of the events in Nepal that were said to have supported his claim to be a refugee, or as being subject to a real risk of serious harm if he returned to Nepal. The Tribunal reasoned that there were several significant and material inconsistencies in the accounts of those events that the appellant had given at various times, and found, in effect, that other elements of his account of the events were implausible: see the Tribunal Statement of Decision and Reasons dated 18 November 2019 (R) at [46]-[54]. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was not a credible witness, that he had no credible basis for fearing persecution in Nepal, and that he did not face any risk of harm if he returned to Nepal: R [55]-[57].

4    It is also unnecessary to give any detailed account of the reasons for judgment of the primary judge. It is sufficient to note that the primary judge found that most, if not all, of the appellant’s grounds of review of the Tribunal’s decision either did not articulate any proper or arguable ground of jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal, or were otherwise plainly unmeritorious: J [28]-[38], [57] and [66]-[75]. It should perhaps be noted in this context that the appellant was not legally represented in the proceedings in the Circuit Court. That perhaps goes some way towards explaining why many of his review grounds did not articulate any, or any arguable, basis upon which it could be said that the Tribunal’s decision involved a jurisdictional error or errors.

5    In respect of the grounds of review that could possibly be said to have articulated a proper or arguable ground of review (grounds 5, 7, 8 and 10), the primary judge noted that those grounds, in effect, sought to challenge the Tribunal’s finding that the appellant had not given an honest or truthful account of the events that grounded his protection visa application. The primary judge rejected any such challenge to the Tribunal’s findings concerning the appellant’s credibility and concluded that the Tribunal’s findings in that regard were open on the evidence and were not in any respect illogical or irrational: J [51]-[54], [58]-[65], and [76]-[78].

6    The appellant’s grounds of appeal in this Court, as set out in his notice of appeal dated 22 May 2025, are as follows:

1.    While I appreciate the lengthy judgment of Judge Cleary I do not agree with the result dismissing my application and the judge should not make a finding that I was not a credible witness.

2.    Judge Cleary failed to take into account my honesty and straightforward answers to the Tribunal as it overlooked to consider my evidence under oath and the transcript submitted in support of my application.

7    As can be seen, those grounds of appeal simply just take issue with the primary judge’s rejection of the appellant’s contention in the Circuit Court that the Tribunal’s finding that he was not an honest or credible witness was not open on the evidence, or was illogical or irrational. The grounds do not clearly articulate any appealable error, other than perhaps the general assertion that the presiding judge failed to take into account his evidence in the Tribunal. A transcript of the hearing before the Tribunal appears to have been tendered in the proceeding before the primary judge. There is, however, no indication as to whether the appellant took the judge to any part or parts of the transcript, or that any submission he advanced before the primary judge was based on something that was recorded in the transcript.

8    The appellant did not file any written submissions in support of his appeal in this Court. He did, however, appear at the hearing of the appeal and made some brief oral submissions. Those submissions did not address either the Tribunal’s decision or the judgment of the primary judge, let alone articulate any bases upon which either the decision or the judgment could be impugned. The appellant said little more than he would encounter logistical difficulties returning home to Nepal and that his life would be at risk “as before”.

9    There is no merit in either of the appellant’s grounds of appeal or any of the arguments he articulated in his oral submissions.

10    I have carefully read the Tribunal’s reasons. Like the primary judge, I have concluded that the Tribunal’s findings and reasoning concerning the appellant’s credibility as a witness and the falsity of his evidence were open on the evidence before the Tribunal. There is also no apparent basis upon which it could be said that the Tribunal’s findings in that regard were illogical or irrational. Nor is there any other basis for concluding that the Tribunal’s decision was legally unreasonable or involved any jurisdictional error.

11    The primary judge, in a careful and thorough judgment, considered all the appellant’s grounds of review. I am unable to discern any error in his Honour’s rejection of those grounds or his reasoning more generally. As his Honour correctly noted, most of the appellant’s review grounds did not articulate any, or any arguable, ground upon which it could be said that the Tribunal’s decision involved any jurisdictional error.

12    In relation to the grounds that sought to challenge the Tribunal’s adverse findings concerning the appellant’s credibility and the honesty of his evidence concerning the events in Nepal, the primary judge correctly articulated the applicable principles in respect of such challenges. His Honour applied those principles when considering the appellant’s contention that the Tribunal’s findings were not open on the evidence or were illogical or irrational. While the primary judge did not refer to the transcript of the hearing in the Tribunal, that is most likely because the appellant appears not to have taken his Honour to the transcript and none of his submissions appear to have addressed to anything recorded in it. The primary judge was correct to find that the Tribunal’s findings in that regard were open on the evidence and were not irrational, illogical or otherwise legally unreasonable. The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the primary judge made any appealable error.

13    It necessarily follows from what I have said that the appellant’s appeal must be dismissed. There is no reason why costs should not follow the event.

Associate:

Dated:    11 August 2026