BZAHM v Minister for Immigration

This matter came before Judge Jarrett of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The applicant sought judicial review of a decision made by the Refugee Review Tribunal. The core of the dispute concerned the tribunal's refusal to consider further evidence and an application for adjournment submitted by the applicant after the tribunal had formally made and issued its written decision.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Refugee Review Tribunal had breached its statutory obligations under section 36(2)(AA) of the *Migration Act 1958* by failing to adequately analyse and examine relevant information, and whether the tribunal's decision was unreasonable. Specifically, the applicant argued that the tribunal failed to consider evidence of a protest in his village in 2001, his anti-communist activities and practice of Catholicism in Vietnam making him a target, and country information relevant to his fear of return.

Judge Jarrett reasoned that under section 430(2) of the *Migration Act 1958*, a decision on a review, other than an oral decision, is taken to have been made upon the making of the written statement. The tribunal had made its written statement at 1:37 pm on 18 June 2014. Consequently, the tribunal had no power to vary or revoke its decision after that time, even upon receipt of the applicant's medical certificate or application for an adjournment later that afternoon. The court found no unreasonableness affecting the tribunal's decision, concluding that this ground of review had no real prospect of success.