BJK17 v Minister for Immigration and ANOR and BJJ17 v Minister for Immigration and ANOR

The applicants, a father and son, arrived in Australia illegally from Sri Lanka and sought protection visas. They lodged a single visa application. The Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) provided separate reasons for its decision at the request of the son. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether there had been one or two "decisions" made by the IAA, and whether the grounds for protection were made out by either applicant.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the IAA's provision of separate reasons to each applicant constituted two distinct decisions, or a single decision with separate explanations. This distinction was crucial for determining the scope of review and the grounds upon which the applicants could challenge the IAA's assessment. The Tribunal also had to consider whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa under Australian migration law, based on the evidence presented regarding their claims of persecution in Sri Lanka.

His Honour Judge J D Wilson QC found that the IAA's actions did not create two separate decisions. The Tribunal reasoned that the single visa application resulted in a single decision, even though separate reasons were provided to each applicant. This approach aligned with the principle that a single application, even if made by multiple individuals, leads to a single determination by the decision-maker. Consequently, the Tribunal proceeded to assess the merits of the protection claims based on the evidence before it, ultimately finding that the grounds for a protection visa were not made out by either applicant.