BJN20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) under section 476 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The primary applicant contended that the Tribunal had fallen into jurisdictional error by failing to understand his current circumstances, specifically his mental health and stress-related issues, which he argued impaired his ability to effectively participate in the hearing and present his case. He also raised concerns about the lack of an interpreter, though he acknowledged not requesting one due to financial constraints.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the Tribunal had committed jurisdictional error in its assessment of the applicant's claims. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the Tribunal erred by failing to consider the impact of the pandemic on the applicant's country of origin, and whether the applicant's alleged mental health condition prevented him from adequately presenting his case, thereby leading to an adverse credibility assessment by the Tribunal. The Court was required to determine if these circumstances, if established, would amount to jurisdictional error, referencing the principle that a tribunal may err if an applicant is not mentally fit to participate in a hearing.

Kendall J dismissed the first ground of review, finding no evidence that the applicants had ever put forward a claim to the Tribunal that they faced a real risk of harm due to the pandemic in Pakistan. The Court noted that while the pandemic presented global concerns, this specific argument was not advanced by the applicants before the Tribunal. Regarding the remaining grounds, the Court acknowledged the applicant's assertion that his mental health issues, including anxiety and stress, hindered his ability to give evidence and present arguments, and potentially influenced the Tribunal's adverse credibility findings. The Court referred to the authority of *Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs v SCAR* (2003) 128 FCR 553, which establishes that a tribunal can fall into jurisdictional error if an applicant is not mentally fit to participate in a hearing, even if the tribunal was unaware of the condition.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.