BGH16 v Minister for Immigration

BGH16 (the applicant) sought judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which had dismissed their application for a Protection Visa. The applicant alleged that the AAT's decision was affected by jurisdictional error due to a failure to make an obvious inquiry regarding a critical fact that could have been easily ascertained. The matter came before Judge Baird in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the AAT had committed jurisdictional error by failing to undertake an obvious and necessary inquiry into a critical fact relevant to the applicant's claim for complementary protection. This involved determining the scope of the AAT's duty to inquire and whether the alleged omission amounted to a failure to exercise its jurisdiction according to law.

Judge Baird found that the AAT had not erred. The court reasoned that while the AAT has a duty to act fairly and to inquire into relevant matters, this duty is not absolute and does not extend to making every conceivable inquiry, particularly where the applicant has not raised the specific factual issue or provided evidence to suggest its existence. The court concluded that the AAT's decision was made within its jurisdiction, as the applicant had not established that the AAT was on notice of the critical fact or that its existence was so obvious as to necessitate an inquiry beyond the evidence and submissions presented. The application for judicial review was therefore dismissed.