BMT19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

The appeal was brought by the appellant, a citizen of India who had applied for a protection visa, against a decision of the Tribunal affirming the delegate’s decision to refuse his application. The appellant had arrived in Australia in 2008 as a dependent of his wife, who held a student visa. His Subclass 487 visa was cancelled in 2016, and he applied for a protection visa in February 2017. The delegate refused the application, and the Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision in June 2017. The appellant sought judicial review of that decision in the Federal Circuit Court, and the proceedings were dismissed. The Minister accepted that the Tribunal had erred in not complying with s 424A of the Migration Act by failing to put certain information to the appellant for comment. The appellant’s application for review of the delegate’s decision was allocated to a different member of the Tribunal, who again affirmed the delegate’s decision. The appellant sought judicial review of that decision, which was also dismissed. The appellant now appeals the decision of the Federal Circuit Court.

The issues before the court were whether the Tribunal’s decision was affected by apprehended bias, and whether the Tribunal’s decision was irrational or based on no evidence. The court found that the Tribunal’s decision was not affected by apprehended bias. The court noted that the Tribunal was permitted to explain in its written reasons its reasoning process for why it gave certain information no weight. The court also found that the Tribunal’s decision was not irrational or based on no evidence. The court noted that the Tribunal’s decision read as a whole revealed that the relevant factual finding was based on a combination of factors, and that the factual finding was supported by at least a skerrick of evidence, the limitations of which the Tribunal acknowledged.

The court dismissed the appeal and ordered that the appellant pay the costs of the first respondent. The court found that the Tribunal’s decision was not affected by apprehended bias, and that the Tribunal’s decision was not irrational or based on no evidence. The court noted that the Tribunal was permitted to explain in its written reasons its reasoning process for why it gave certain information no weight. The court also found that the Tribunal’s decision read as a whole revealed that the relevant factual finding was based on a combination of factors, and that the factual finding was supported by at least a skerrick of evidence, the limitations of which the Tribunal acknowledged. The court dismissed the appeal and ordered that the appellant pay the costs of the first respondent.