ARQ17 v Minister for Immigration

This matter came before Judge Riley of the Federal Court of Australia. The appellant sought judicial review of a decision by the Authority, arguing that the Authority had committed jurisdictional error by failing to provide reasons for its decision regarding the exercise of a discretion under section 473DD of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The core of the dispute concerned whether the Authority was obligated to explicitly state in its reasons whether it had considered, and how it had exercised, its discretion under section 473DD, particularly in relation to new information.

The legal issues before the Court were whether section 473EA of the *Migration Act* (Cth), when read with section 25D of the *Acts Interpretation Act 1901* (Cth), imposed an obligation on the Authority to provide reasons for its procedural decisions, specifically concerning the exercise of discretion under section 473DD. The appellant contended that the absence of any reference to this discretion in the Authority's reasons meant it had not been considered, or that the failure to provide reasons for its exercise constituted jurisdictional error. The Minister argued that the reasons requirement was confined to the ultimate decision and did not extend to procedural decisions made during the review process.

Judge Riley accepted the Minister's submissions, finding that section 473EA(1) of the *Migration Act* was directed to the ultimate decision on the review and the reasons for that decision, rather than to procedural decisions made along the way. The Court relied on the reasoning in *BCQ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection* [2018] FCA 365, which held that section 473EA did not require a statement of decision to refer to procedural decisions taken during a review. The Court found this case to be relevant and indistinguishable from the present matter. The Judge concluded that there was no obligation on the Authority to give reasons for failing to state its reasons in respect of the discretion in section 473DD, and therefore no jurisdictional error had occurred.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as no error on the part of the primary judge had been established.