AYC18 v Minister for Immigration and Anor (No.2)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) to refuse a protection visa to the applicant, AYC18. The applicant claimed a fear of harm if returned to Sri Lanka. The IAA had found the applicant's fears were not well-founded. The applicant sought judicial review, arguing, among other things, that the IAA erred in its consideration of the risk to him as a returnee who had departed Sri Lanka illegally.

The primary legal issue before the Federal Court was whether the IAA had committed jurisdictional error. Specifically, the applicant contended that the IAA's findings were based on "no evidence," which, if established in relation to a jurisdictional fact, would constitute jurisdictional error. The court was required to determine if there was any evidence upon which the IAA's findings could be based, and whether any such finding related to a jurisdictional fact.

The court applied established principles regarding the "no evidence" ground of review. It reiterated that this ground is not established by mere insufficiency of evidence, but requires an actual absence of any foundation in fact for a finding. Furthermore, a jurisdictional error based on "no evidence" can only be established if there is no evidence to support a finding of a jurisdictional fact. The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated an absence of evidence for the IAA's findings. It noted that the IAA was entitled to act on direct evidence and draw inferences, and that there was evidence before the IAA of a cousin who had provided documents to the applicant, which was a sufficient evidentiary basis for any implicit finding regarding potential support upon return. The court concluded that no jurisdictional error had been demonstrated.