CDJ18 v Minister for Home Affairs

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) affirming a delegate's decision not to grant a Safe Haven Enterprise visa. The IAA had affirmed the delegate's decision after considering the applicant's further submissions and statement, which it found did not contain new information. The applicant had also requested an interview, particularly if credibility concerns arose.

The court was required to determine whether the IAA erred in law by failing to grant the applicant an interview, and whether the IAA's decision that the applicant did not face a real chance of serious harm was affected by jurisdictional error. Specifically, the court considered whether the IAA was obligated to conduct a review if adverse credibility findings were to be made, and whether the applicant had a right to a hearing.

The IAA reasoned that its review was to be conducted "on the papers" and that the applicant did not have a right to a hearing. It noted that the applicant was represented throughout the process and that no specific new information requiring an interview was identified by the applicant's solicitor. The IAA was satisfied it had sufficient material to make a decision and did not make adverse credibility findings. While accepting the applicant's identity and his claims of discrimination and harassment based on his religion, the IAA concluded that these did not amount to serious harm as defined by the Act, particularly in light of country information suggesting an improved situation and the applicant's profile not fitting those at high risk. Similarly, regarding the applicant's parents' involvement in protests, the IAA found their profile did not indicate they were at high risk of harm.