AYK17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

In the case of AYK17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, the appellant, AYK17, sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) to affirm a delegate's decision to refuse him a Safe Haven Enterprise visa. The legal issues presented to the court were whether the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (FCCA) judge erred in not finding that the IAA failed to comply with section 473DC of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and whether the FCCA judge failed to adequately address the substantive integer of the application or provide sufficient reasons for rejecting the ground of review. Additionally, a new ground of appeal was raised, alleging that the IAA misconstrued section 473DD by unduly narrowing its consideration of the term "exceptional circumstances".

The court found that the IAA's limited statutory role dictated its function, and it could only affirm the delegate's decision or remit the case for further consideration. The court held that the IAA did not stand in the shoes of the original decision maker and its function was to review adverse decisions referred to it by the Department. The court found that the appellant's new claim involved "new information" and, therefore, the statutory prohibition against receiving "new information" also applied to the appellant's new claim. It pertained to a different fear, and the appellant's application must fail.

The court allowed the appeal on the basis of the new ground raised by the appellant. The decision of the IAA made on 3 February 2017 was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the IAA (differently constituted) for determination in accordance with law. The first respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to the appeal, to be fixed by way of a lump sum to be agreed between the parties. If the parties could not agree on a lump sum for the costs, the matter of fixing a lump sum for costs was to be referred to a Registrar for determination.