FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA CHS19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 146 Appeal from: CHS19 v Minister for Immigration [2019] FCCA 2138 File number(s): NSD 1372 of 2019 Judge(s): THAWLEY J Date of judgment: 18 February 2020 Cases cited: CHS19 v Minister for Immigration [2019] FCCA 2138 Date of hearing: 13 February 2020 Registry: New South Wales Division: General Division National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Category: No Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 14 Counsel for the Appellant: The appellant appeared in person Solicitor for the Respondents: Australian Government Solicitors ORDERS NSD 1372 of 2019 BETWEEN: CHS19 Appellant AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS First Respondent ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL Second Respondent JUDGE: THAWLEY J DATE OF ORDER: 18 February 2020 THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed with costs. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT THAWLEY J: 1 The appellant relies upon one ground of appeal from the orders of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia made on 5 August 2019 dismissing his application for judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal: CHS19 v Minister for Immigration [2019] FCCA 2138. The sole ground of appeal is: "procedural fairness". 2 The background was summarised in the respondent's written submissions filed on 3 February 2020 and was not in contention. The appellant is a citizen of Taiwan who arrived in Australia on a visitor visa on 17 March 2013. Upon arrival, the appellant's visa was cancelled and he was taken into criminal custody. He was later convicted of drug importation in May 2014. 3 On 27 March 2019, the appellant applied for the Safe Haven Enterprise Visa (SHEV) on the basis that if he returned to Taiwan he would be harmed by a criminal organisation (the Triads). The appellant claimed that the Triads would kill him for losing the drugs which were confiscated upon his arrival in Australia and that his family had been threatened by the Triads. 4 On 3 April 2019, the delegate for the Minister refused the SHEV and found that appellant would have effective protection in Taiwan, such that there was not a real risk that he would suffer significant harm. 5 The appellant sought review of the delegate's decision and appeared before the Tribunal on 7 May 2019. 6 On 22 May 2019, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review. 7 On 12 June 2019 the appellant sought judicial review of the Tribunal's decision in the Federal Circuit Court. 8 The appellant had applied for an adjournment of the Federal Circuit Court hearing. That application was refused. The basis of the appellant's adjournment application was that the appellant wanted to obtain legal representation. The appellant had relied upon an application for legal assistance which he had made on 1 July 2019 to Justice Connect. The application he relied upon contained a notation that the application had been declined. He also relied upon a letter apparently sent on 30 June 2019 from Legal Aid New South Wales which stated: "We will review your application and let you know the outcome in approximately 30 working days". 9 The primary judge refused the application for an adjournment. His Honour was not shown to have erred in exercising his discretion to refuse the adjournment. 10 The primary judge then considered the judicial review application. The grounds were: 1. The applicant never had a real and meaningful hearing. 2. There was a breach of s 425 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) that Tribunal breached the requirements of procedural fairness by reason of flawed translation during the hearing. 3. There was a mistranslations amount [sic] to a material breach of s 425 – jurisdictional error established. 11 As to the first ground, his Honour concluded from a reading of the Tribunal's reasons that it was not established that the appellant was not afforded a real and meaningful hearing. I have reached the same view. As the primary judge noted, the Tribunal's reasons summarise what occurred during the hearing, including the Tribunal raising its concerns or issues in respect of the appellant's claims. At the appellant's request, the Tribunal took evidence by telephone from Taiwan from a person presumed to be the appellant's sister and took into account a further communication received from the appellant's sister after the conclusion of the hearing. The Tribunal obtained a translation of this communication. The evidence before the Federal Circuit Court did not establish that the appellant was not afforded a real and meaningful hearing before the Tribunal. 12 As to the second ground, his Honour noted that no evidence had been adduced in support of the assertion that there had been a "flawed translation". The Tribunal had noted in its reasons that the appellant had confirmed he understood the Mandarin interpreter. His Honour was correct in the circumstances to dismiss the second ground. The appellant failed to discharge his onus of establishing jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal arising in connection with the translation. 13 As to the third ground, his Honour concluded that it was, in substance, a repetition of ground two. There was no evidence of any material mistranslation. His Honour was correct to dismiss the third ground of judicial review. 14 The appellant has not demonstrated any error on the part of the Federal Circuit Court or jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal. The appeal must accordingly be dismissed with costs. I certify that the preceding fourteen (14) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Thawley. Associate: Dated: 18 February 2020