ATS17 v Minister for Immigration

This matter concerned an application to review a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The applicant, ATS17, sought judicial review of the Tribunal's decision to affirm the Minister for Immigration's decision to refuse to grant a protection visa. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the Tribunal had failed to comply with its obligations under sections 424A or 425 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).

The legal issues before the Federal Court were whether the Tribunal had failed to provide the applicant with adequate notice of adverse information that might be the reason for affirming the decision, as required by section 424A(1), and whether the Tribunal had failed to give the applicant a reasonable opportunity to respond to that information, as required by section 425. Specifically, the applicant argued that certain information, including the contents of his passport and supportive material from Pastor Piper, constituted information that the Tribunal should have put to him under section 424A(1).

Justice Barnes, applying the principles from *SZBYR* [2017] FCA 1575, found that the applicant's passport, which indicated he had left India legally, did not in itself contain information that rejected, denied, or undermined his claims for protection. The Court reasoned that such information was not to be found in disbeliefs arising from a process of reasoning applied to the evidence, but rather in the text of the information itself, which was neutral in this instance. Similarly, the Court found that the letters of support from Pastor Piper, which attested to the applicant's sincerity and Christian faith, did not, on their face, contain any rejection or undermining of the applicant's claims. The Court also considered the transcript of the Tribunal hearing, noting that the Tribunal had clearly put the applicant on notice regarding the issues of his motivation for conversion and had provided him with opportunities to explain his reasons. The Tribunal's questions were directed at understanding the applicant's personal motivation for conversion, distinguishing it from criticisms of Islam or comparisons between religions made by Pastor Piper.

The Court concluded that the applicant had not established that the Tribunal failed to comply with its obligations under sections 424A or 425 of the *Migration Act 1958*. Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed.