AMD19 v Minister for Home Affairs

The applicant, an Iranian national, sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) which affirmed a delegate's refusal to grant him a Safe Haven Enterprise Visa. The delegate and the IAA had refused the visa on the basis that the applicant was not a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The applicant alleged jurisdictional error by the IAA.

The court was required to determine two grounds of jurisdictional error. Firstly, the applicant contended that the IAA erred by not exercising caution regarding omissions in his initial entry interview, as suggested in *MZZJO v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection* (2014) 239 FCR 436. Secondly, the applicant argued that the IAA's finding that he had not crossed any "red lines" with material posted on Facebook was legally unreasonable, lacking evident and intelligible justification, as per *Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZFVW* (2018) HCA 30.

The court dismissed the application. Regarding the first ground, it found that the IAA had not solely relied on the entry interview, but had considered a range of inconsistencies in the applicant's evidence presented at different stages, including his written statement, the Safe Haven Enterprise Visa interview, and his submissions to the IAA. The court noted that the principles in *MZZJO* cautioned against relying *solely* on entry interview omissions, and that the IAA's approach of considering multiple inconsistencies was open to it as a merits decision-maker. On the second ground, the court accepted the Minister's submission that legal unreasonableness, as discussed in *MIBP v Li* (2013) 249 CLR 332, primarily concerns the exercise of discretionary powers, not factual findings. Furthermore, it was open to the IAA to find that the material posted by the applicant on Facebook, given his personal capacity and the context of country information regarding journalists and bloggers, did not cross "red lines".

The application was dismissed with costs ordered against the applicant.