Alh20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant against a decision of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. The applicant sought judicial review of a decision made by the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal), which affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the applicant a Protection Visa. The core of the dispute revolved around the country information the Tribunal considered when assessing the applicant's claims for protection.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error by relying on outdated country information and news reports, thereby failing to discharge its statutory task. Specifically, the applicant argued that the Tribunal's reliance on country information from 2010 was inappropriate for a decision made in 2020, and that the Tribunal overlooked or ignored more recent, materially different country information, including reports from the US Department of State and the International Crisis Group concerning the inter-religious situation in Cameroon.

The Court considered the principles of judicial review, noting that a Tribunal decision may be set aside if affected by jurisdictional error, which can occur if the Tribunal identifies a wrong issue, asks the wrong question, ignores relevant material, or relies on irrelevant material. The Minister contended that it was for the applicant to provide material to establish her case, that the weight attributed to country information was a matter for the Tribunal, and that the Tribunal was not obliged to inquire into more recent country information than it had before it. The applicant, however, argued that a rational decision-maker would not rely on such outdated reports and that the failure to consult readily available, more recent information constituted jurisdictional error.

The Court found that the Tribunal's reliance on country information from 2010, when making a decision in 2020, and its failure to consider more recent reports detailing religious assaults and the potential for religious intolerance in Cameroon, amounted to jurisdictional error. This was because the Tribunal had failed to have regard to relevant material that was readily available and materially different from the information it relied upon, thereby failing to properly discharge its duty under section 414 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Consequently, the Tribunal's decision was set aside.