Background
EUE20, a citizen of Bangladesh, applied for a protection visa after his further student visa application was refused. A ministerial delegate refused the protection visa in 2017, and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed that decision in October 2020. The Federal Circuit and Family Court later rejected his judicial-review challenge, finding no jurisdictional error.
After the Tribunal hearing, EUE20 sought time to obtain a psychologist’s report. The Tribunal granted a final extension until 28 September 2020, then declined a request to wait until 26 November, while stating that it would consider any medical evidence received before its decision. It accepted that EUE20 might suffer from depression, anxiety and stress but considered that a further report would probably reconfirm those symptoms and would not justify delaying the review.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Abraham dismissed EUE20’s appeal. The Court held that he had not shown error in the primary judge’s conclusion that the Tribunal’s refusal to grant more time had an evident and intelligible justification and was not legally unreasonable.
The reasons given to the Tribunal did not identify the proposed report as evidence bearing on EUE20’s credibility or explaining inconsistencies in his testimony. Because EUE20 was represented and the Tribunal had specifically asked his representatives to explain the report’s relevance, it was entitled to assess the extension request by reference to the explanation and psychologist’s letter provided. Neither the definite delivery date nor the Tribunal proceeding’s earlier delay made the refusal unreasonable or procedurally unfair. The Court dismissed the appeal with costs.
Key Takeaways
- A tribunal may refuse additional time for evidence when it reasonably concludes that the evidence is unlikely to add materially to facts it already accepts.
- When a represented applicant is asked to explain proposed evidence’s relevance, a court may assess the tribunal’s decision by reference to the explanation actually provided.
- Earlier administrative delay and a definite date for obtaining a report do not, without more, establish that refusing an extension was legally unreasonable or procedurally unfair.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the high threshold for establishing legal unreasonableness in challenges to procedural decisions by migration tribunals. A tribunal is not required to give an applicant every opportunity to improve the evidentiary case and may decide that sufficient time has been allowed where its reasoning is apparent and rational.
It also illustrates the importance of identifying before the tribunal every material purpose for which proposed expert evidence is sought. A relevance argument developed only during judicial review or appeal may not demonstrate error in the tribunal’s earlier decision.