ARY16 v Minister for Immigration

This matter came before Judge Nicholls of the Federal Court of Australia concerning an application for review of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The applicant sought to challenge the Tribunal's decision, but made no submissions regarding the grounds of the substantive application. The applicant also sought leave to amend their substantive application to introduce a new ground.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the grounds of the substantive application revealed any jurisdictional error, and whether there was sufficient merit in the proposed amended ground to warrant granting leave to amend in the interests of justice. The Court was required to consider whether the applicant's claims, as presented and as proposed to be amended, clearly arose from the materials before the Tribunal.

In dismissing the application, the Court applied the principles established in cases such as *NABE (No 2)* and *Dranichnikov*, which require that a claim must be substantial, clearly articulated, and rely upon established facts to be considered by a tribunal. The Court found that the applicant's proposed ground, relating to the "Emigration Ordinance Act 1982 (Bangladesh)" and the use of a false passport, did not clearly emerge from the materials before the Tribunal. The reference to the false passport was made in the context of explaining how the applicant left Bangladesh, not as a basis for fearing persecution upon return. Consequently, the Court concluded that there was no merit in the proposed ground, and therefore refused leave to amend the substantive application. The Court also noted that no factual error, as had occurred in *NABE (No 2)*, was submitted in this case.