Federal Court of Australia

CAB22 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1147

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The name of the first respondent be amended to the “Minister for Immigration and Citizenship”.

2.    The appeal be dismissed with costs.

3.    The first respondent has leave to apply to a Registrar of the Court for costs in a fixed amount.

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

STEWART J:

Background

1    The appellant is a citizen of Bangladesh who arrived in Australia on a temporary activity visa to cover the Commonwealth Games as a journalist in 2018.

2    He then applied for a protection visa, but that was refused by a delegate of the Minister.

3    The appellant sought review of the delegate’s decision in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

4    The Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision.

5    The appellant sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision in Division 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The primary judge dismissed the appellant’s application.

6    The appellant now appeals from the decision of the primary judge.

The Tribunal’s decision

7    The Tribunal assessed the appellant’s claim for a protection visa against the criteria in s 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

8    The Tribunal summarised the appellant’s claims, namely that the appellant was an active member of the Bangladesh National Party (BNP) or its youth wing the Jatiotabadi Chatra Dal (JCD) in Bangladesh from the time he began college until his departure from Bangladesh. He claimed that he was physically harmed and falsely accused of acts of violence by Awami League (AL) politicians or associates because of his BNP membership. He claimed that he had also been involved with the BNP in Australia. He feared that he would be arrested on false charges, kidnapped, disappeared or killed if he returns to Bangladesh.

9    The Tribunal reviewed country information available to it and provided by the appellant. The Tribunal identified the appellant’s claims and evidence, setting out the claims and the evidence submitted in support of them in considerable detail. The Tribunal then analysed the claims and the evidence.

10    Ultimately, the Tribunal did not find the appellant to be a truthful or credible witness. The Tribunal recognised that some of the problems in the appellant’s evidence identified by it are minor and would not on their own have caused the Tribunal to reject the claims in their entirety. However, other problems are significant and the accumulation of issues in the overall pattern of the appellant’s evidence led the Tribunal to conclude that the appellant had not provided an honest account of his reasons for seeking protection in Australia.

11    The Tribunal did not accept that the appellant was active in the BNP in Bangladesh at any time or that he or members of his family were threatened or harmed by anyone because of his political activities at any time prior to or following his departure from Bangladesh. [AB 488/131] The Tribunal accepted that the appellant joined the BNP in Australia, but concluded that he did that solely to support his application for protection in Australia.

12    Ultimately, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the appellant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a) of the Act and thus does not meet the refugee criteria. The Tribunal reached the same conclusion in respect of the complementary protection criteria in s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.

13    As a result, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

The Federal Circuit and Family Court proceeding

14    The appellant was a litigant in person before the primary judge. There is nothing to suggest that the appellant has any legal training or experience.

15    The application for judicial review before the primary judge raised three grounds of review.

16    Review ground 1 was that the Tribunal “failed to take … into consideration” five identified aspects of the appellant’s evidence which were said to critically support his claims. The primary judge analysed the Tribunal’s decision in respect of each of the five items of evidence, and in each case identified that the Tribunal had considered that evidence. The primary judge accordingly found that there was no jurisdictional error in respect of review ground 1.

17    By review ground 2 the appellant contended that the Tribunal “failed to consider” a claim by the appellant that “his family … had been continuously intimidated, threatened, hassled and even attacked by the AL supporters”. The primary judge identified where in the Tribunal’s reasons it had specifically dealt with the appellant’s claims about harassment and harm to his family and its conclusion that it “did not accept that his family was harassed or attacked by AL members who wish to harm him”. The primary judge accordingly found that there was no jurisdictional error in respect of review ground 2.

18    By review ground 3 the appellant contended that the Tribunal “erred in interpreting or applying the ‘real chance’ test [in] s 5J of the Migration Act” which was said to be demonstrated by the Tribunal’s finding that the appellant did not face a real chance of serious harm, despite the material before the Tribunal. The primary judge found that the Tribunal’s “reasons for the decision disclose a logical and intelligible basis” (quoting from Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Gill [2019] FCAFC 9; 268 FCR 575 at [54]) for its conclusion that it was not satisfied that the appellant faces a real chance of suffering serious harm for any reason if he returns to Bangladesh. As a result, the primary judge was not persuaded that the Tribunal had erred in interpreting or applying the “real chance” test and review ground 3 failed.

19    In the result, the application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.

The appeal to this Court

20    The appellant remains unrepresented in the proceeding in this Court. His notice of appeal reflects that in that it does not identify any contended for jurisdictional error. Rather, it amounts to a brief statement that the appellant continues to believe that he was physically harmed and falsely accused of acts of violence and he has a genuine fear of returning to Bangladesh. He says that the Tribunal and the primary judge “failed to prove” that he had provided fraudulent documents and that they “failed to consider the particulars which should lead into jurisdictional error”, but no such particulars are identified. He also says that his case was misunderstood by the Tribunal and the primary judge.

21    It is not possible to discern any appealable error as having been identified or contended for in the notice of appeal.

22    The appellant filed brief written submissions. With one exception, they do not correlate in any discernible way to what is said in the notice of appeal. They make generalised criticisms of the primary judge’s reasons for judgment and do not specify any error with sufficient particularity to enable them to be properly assessed on appeal. The exception, correlating with review ground 2 before the primary judge, is the contention that the Tribunal ignored the appellant’s claims that his family had been threatened and attacked by AL supporters.

23    As dealt with above, the primary judge identified in the reasons of the Tribunal where the Tribunal had indeed dealt with the appellant’s claims about his family having been threatened and attacked by AL supporters. The Tribunal (at [123]-[124] of its reasons) identified the appellant’s claim that his family were repeatedly harassed by AL members looking for him after he left Bangladesh, and his claim that his family home was set on fire and his father was assaulted by AL members who were looking for the appellant because he was a prominent member of the BNP. The Tribunal rejected that claim and gave reasons for that rejection including that the Tribunal considered the translation of a newspaper article which states that in the aftermath of elections the appellant’s house was attacked and his father assaulted was not a genuine report.

24    It is thus apparent that the Tribunal did consider and deal with the claim. It was a matter for the Tribunal to assess that claim and make a determination as to its merits. That is not a matter for the Court. No jurisdictional error has been shown in the how the Tribunal dealt with it, and consequently there is no appealable error in how the primary judge dealt with the relevant review ground.

25    On the hearing of the appeal, the appellant was invited to particularise the ways in which he contended that the Tribunal erred in its treatment of his protection claims. The appellant raised three matters.

26    First, the appellant referred to a hospital certificate that he had provided as evidence to the Tribunal of injuries that he said that he suffered at the hands of AL cadre. He submitted that the certificate had not been properly dealt with or considered, or had been unreasonably rejected, by the Tribunal. The hospital certificate is one of the documents that was the subject of review ground one before the primary judge. The primary judge identified that the Tribunal had summarised the document, described the appellant’s oral evidence about the incident and found that it was not satisfied that the document was genuine. The Tribunal explained (at [118] of its reasons) why it rejected the certificate. That was a matter for the Tribunal within its jurisdiction. I do not identify any jurisdictional error with the way in which the Tribunal dealt with that issue.

27    Second, the appellant referred to a first information report that he had provided as evidence to the Tribunal. The first information report is also one of the items of evidence that was the subject of review ground 1. As found by the primary judge, the Tribunal considered the first information report and was not satisfied that it was genuine. Earlier in its reasons (at [45]), the Tribunal had summarised the first information report. Later (at [65]), it recorded that it had sought further information from the appellant about the first information report. Ultimately (at [119]), the Tribunal explained why it was not satisfied that the report was a genuine document and why it gave it no weight. Again, that was a matter for the Tribunal and I can identify no jurisdictional error with regard to how the Tribunal dealt with that.

28    Third, the appellant raised certain reference documents from leaders of the BNP with regard to his membership and involvement in the BNP. Those documents were also the subject of review ground 1 before the primary judge. As found by the primary judge, the letters of reference were considered by the Tribunal in its reasons (at [94]-[97]). Indeed (at [68]), the Tribunal noted one of the documents, a letter dated 12 June 2018, summarised it and identified what the appellant said about it. The Tribunal returned to that letter and one of the others, dated 16 January 2022, later in its reasons (at [94]-[95]). The Tribunal also considered the last of the letters, which was dated 23 October 2020 (at [97]). Again, there is no jurisdictional error in the way in which the Tribunal dealt with the reference letters.

29    I have carefully considered the manner in which the primary judge dealt with each of the grounds of review, and I am unable to discern any error by the primary judge.

30    I listened carefully to the appellant at the hearing of his appeal, and I have considered what he has said. However, I have not been able to identify any jurisdictional error by the Tribunal.

31    In the circumstances, the appeal must be dismissed with costs.

Associate:

Dated:    14 August 2026