Bon17 v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, a citizen of Afghanistan, sought review of a decision by the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) to affirm the refusal of his Safe Haven Enterprise Visa. The applicant had arrived in Australia as an unauthorised maritime arrival in 2012 and subsequently applied for the visa, advancing claims based on his Hazara Shia ethnicity, past opposition to a Taliban official, a land dispute, and the death of his parents at the hands of the Taliban. The IAA affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the visa.

The court was required to determine whether the IAA had failed to consider new information provided by the applicant, whether this failure was unreasonable, and whether the IAA had unreasonably failed to "get" this new information. Specifically, the applicant argued that the IAA had not adequately considered information relating to his family's relocation to Pakistan and the disappearance of his sons, as well as medical reports concerning his mental health.

The court found that the IAA had considered the new information as a whole, particularly in relation to the applicant's family, and had also considered information regarding the attacks themselves. The court noted that the IAA was not required to provide reasons for procedural decisions, such as its decision not to consider certain new information on the basis of doubts about its veracity or vagueness. This reasoning was supported by case law which established that the IAA's obligation to provide written reasons under section 473EA of the Act pertains to the decision on the review itself, not to procedural decisions made during the review process. The court accepted the IAA's construction that the term "decision" in section 473EA(1)(b) referred to the final decision on the review and not to intermediate procedural determinations.

The application was dismissed.