On 5 August 2020, we had a win for our clients, the Kumar family (not their real names) in the matter of BTT16 & ORS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2020] FCCA 2134.

The Kumar family are Sri Lankans of Tamil ethnicity. They fled Sri Lanka in 2012 due to repeated harassment and assault from armed gangs. In leaving Sri Lanka, they committed criminal offences under the Immigrants and Emigrants Act by leaving from a place other than an approved port and leaving without passports.

After arriving in Australia they were eventually given the opportunity to apply for protection visas. The Minister for Immigration refused to grant them protection visas and referred the Kumar family’s applications to the Immigration Assessment Authority for review. The Authority affirmed the Minister’s decision to refuse to grant the Kumar family protection visas.

The Kumar family applied to the Federal Circuit Court for judicial review of the Authority’s decision. Being unrepresented, they failed and their application was dismissed. The Kumar family then appealed this judgment to the Federal Court. I came into this matter at this point after accepting a pro bono referral to act for them. I successfully argued that the Authority had overlooked important evidence in assessing the Kumar family’s applications. The Federal Court set aside the decision of the Authority and remitted the matter for redetermination according to law: BTT16 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 251.

The Authority again affirmed the Minister’s decision to refuse to grant the Kumar family protection visas. The Kumar family again applied to the Federal Circuit Court for judicial review of the Authority’s decision. I represented them and successfully argued that the Authority had made a finding without evidence which affected the outcome of the review. The finding in question was that the child Applicant would not be prosecuted on his return to Sri Lanka under the Immigrants and Emigrants Act for leaving Sri Lanka illegally. There was simply no evidence to support this finding, the Authority having misinterpreted a DFAT report on the subject.

It was very pleasing to get another successful outcome for a very vulnerable, hard working and deserving family.