ALZ15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

The appellant, who had previously made two unsuccessful applications for protection visas, sought judicial review of the decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia which dismissed his application for review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT). The RRT had affirmed the decision of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to refuse his application for a protection visa. The appellant argued that the decision-maker fell into error in conducting the International Treaties Obligation Assessment (ITOA), specifically that she failed to provide him with all the information relevant to the assessment, including an unabridged report from KPMG on the data breach, which was necessary to effectively and competently prepare his claim for refugee status. The appellant also claimed that the decision-maker was in a conflict of interest because she was required to make a decision on whether there was a real chance that he would face serious or significant harm upon return to Thailand due to his name and personal details being placed on the Internet by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP).

The court was required to determine whether the decision-maker fell into error in conducting the ITOA by failing to provide the appellant with all the relevant information, and whether this error was a jurisdictional error that would invalidate the decision. The court was also required to determine whether the decision-maker was in a conflict of interest and whether this affected the validity of the decision.

The court found that the decision-maker did not fall into error in conducting the ITOA because she had provided the appellant with an opportunity to comment on and respond to the information that was relevant to the assessment. The court found that the decision-maker had fulfilled her obligations of procedural fairness to the appellant in this way. The court also found that the decision-maker was not in a conflict of interest because she was not required to make a decision on whether there was a real chance that the appellant would face serious or significant harm upon return to Thailand due to his name and personal details being placed on the Internet by the DIBP. The court found that the decision-maker was required to make a decision on whether the appellant faced a real chance of persecution in Thailand, which was a separate issue from the data breach.

The appeal was dismissed and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal, to be fixed in a lump sum by order of the Court. The Court directed that the first respondent file and serve an affidavit constituting a Costs Summary in accordance with the Court's Costs Practice Note, and that the applicant file and serve any Costs Response in accordance with the Costs Practice Note.