AUQ18 and Ors v Minister for Immigration and Anor

The applicants sought remedies under s 476 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) following a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirming a refusal to grant a Protection visa. The central dispute concerned whether the Tribunal had acted unreasonably or irrationally in its assessment of the first applicant's credibility and in its consideration of certain claims for protection. The applicants also raised questions about whether the Tribunal was required to provide notice that the first applicant's credibility might be an issue, and whether such notice had been given.

The court was required to determine whether the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error by, among other things, making an adverse credibility finding without adequately notifying the first applicant that her credibility was in issue. Specifically, the applicants argued that the Tribunal failed to comply with s 425 of the Act by not inviting the first applicant to give evidence and present arguments concerning her claim that she feared harm due to a perception within her community that she had converted to Christianity. They contended that the delegate's decision, which relied on country information rather than a definitive credibility assessment, meant the applicant was not on notice that her credibility on this specific claim would be a determinative issue before the Tribunal.

The court reasoned that the phrase "issues arising in relation to the decision under review" in s 425 of the Act refers to those elements of an applicant's claims that the original decision-maker found determinative against granting the visa. Applying this, the court found that the delegate's rejection of the "Perceived Conversion Claims" meant that whether these claims should be accepted was an issue arising in relation to the delegate's decision. Therefore, the applicant was on notice that this would be an issue before the Tribunal. Furthermore, the court noted that the delegate's reasons, which included doubts about the applicant's credibility and findings of fabricated documents, indicated that the applicant's overall credibility was likely to be an issue, and she ought reasonably to have been aware of this. The court concluded that the Tribunal did not err in its consideration of the claims or in its approach to credibility.