ALI18 v Minister for Immigration

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) to refuse a protection visa. The applicant claimed a fear of harm in Afghanistan, and the IAA had found that the applicant could reasonably relocate to Mazar-e-Sharif. The applicant contended that the IAA erred in its assessment of the reasonableness of relocation and in its consideration of new information.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the IAA had made a jurisdictional error in its assessment of the reasonableness of the applicant's relocation to Mazar-e-Sharif, and whether the IAA had erred in its consideration of material that constituted "new information" under section 473DC(1) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The court was required to determine if the applicant had provided relevant knowledge of facts or circumstances to the IAA that qualified as new information, and if so, whether the IAA had correctly considered the preconditions for assessing such information under section 473DD of the Act.

Judge Driver found that a jurisdictional error had been established in the IAA's relocation assessment. The court applied principles established in *ESQ17 v Minister for Immigration* and *SZEEU v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs*, which clarify that "new information" refers to knowledge of relevant facts or circumstances communicated to the decision-maker. The court noted that a failure by the IAA to appreciate that material before it constituted new information, if material to its review function, could give rise to jurisdictional error. The Minister argued that the applicant's reference to back pain was not relevant to the relocation assessment, but the court's finding of jurisdictional error indicates a disagreement with this submission.