Baban v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

The appellant, a citizen of Iraq, appealed against the decision of the primary judge who dismissed, with costs, his application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal. The Tribunal had affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs not to grant the appellant and his infant son protection visas. The appellant argued that the Tribunal failed to comply with the procedures required by the Migration Act in connection with the making of its decision. Specifically, it was said that the Tribunal did not refer to a letter from the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and did not deal with two items of country information. The primary judge dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal’s written statement of reasons was not reviewable pursuant to s 476(1)(a) of the Migration Act and that the Tribunal had not failed to comply with s 430 of the Act. The appellant claimed that the primary judge erred in both findings.

The appeal raised two main issues: first, whether the Tribunal’s written statement of reasons was subject to review under s 476(1)(a) of the Migration Act; and second, whether the Tribunal had complied with the procedures required by s 430 of the Act. The Full Court in Singh had held that s 430 did prescribe the kind of procedures referred to in s 476(1)(a), contrary to the primary judge’s reliance on Xu. Therefore, the primary judge’s broader ground for dismissing the appeal could not be supported. However, the appeal failed on the second issue: the Tribunal’s failure to refer to the PUK letter and to deal with two items of country information did not amount to a failure to comply with s 430. It was not necessary for the Tribunal to refer to every piece of evidence inconsistent with its findings.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.