ABT17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal by an applicant against the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection concerning a decision by the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) to affirm the refusal of a temporary protection visa. The applicant, an unauthorised maritime arrival from Sri Lanka, had claimed to fear persecution based on his ethnicity and past experiences with the Sri Lankan Army. The delegate of the Minister had accepted the applicant's account as plausible but ultimately refused the visa based on country information suggesting improved circumstances. The IAA, reviewing the decision under the fast-track provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), departed from the delegate's assessment of the applicant's credibility, finding some claims exaggerated and others implausible, without inviting the applicant for an interview.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the IAA acted with legal unreasonableness in departing from the delegate's assessment of the appellant's credibility without inviting the appellant to an interview, whether the appellant's demeanour during the delegate's interview constituted "new information" under section 473DC of the *Migration Act*, and whether the IAA's failure to invite the appellant to an interview was material to its decision. These questions arose from the IAA's statutory obligation to review decisions, its discretion to consider new information, and the general requirement to conduct reviews without new interviews or information unless exceptional circumstances were met.

The High Court reasoned that the IAA's departure from the delegate's positive assessment of the appellant's credibility, particularly regarding the plausibility of his claims of torture, was legally unreasonable. The IAA's adverse findings about the appellant's demeanour during the delegate's interview, such as vagueness and hesitation, were found to be a departure from the delegate's direct observation and assessment of plausibility. The Court held that such a departure, especially when it led to a rejection of core claims, created an "informational gap" that could only be reasonably addressed by allowing the appellant an opportunity to be interviewed, as contemplated by section 473DC. The Court concluded that the failure to provide this opportunity was material to the IAA's decision.

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Federal Court and remitting the matter to be determined according to law. The decision also included orders for the Minister to pay the appellant's costs at various court levels.