Cli19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

The case of Cli19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs involved the appellant, Cli19, who had applied for a protection visa in Australia. The appellant had alleged that he faced harm if returned to his country of origin, Sri Lanka. The Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) had reviewed the delegate's decision to refuse the visa, but did not consider new information provided by the appellant, specifically a warrant for his arrest on terrorism charges. The appellant argued that the IAA made a jurisdictional error by not considering the new information despite having serious reservations about its credibility.

The legal issue at the core of this case was whether the IAA made a jurisdictional error by not factoring in the new information, which was credible though subject to serious reservations, into its assessment of whether exceptional circumstances justified its consideration. The court had to determine if the IAA complied with the procedural requirements under s 473DD of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) when deciding not to consider the new information.

The court found that the IAA had indeed made a jurisdictional error. It noted that the IAA had to assess whether the new information met the criteria specified in s 473DD(b)(i) and (ii) before determining if exceptional circumstances existed under s 473DD(a). The court held that the IAA's failure to assess the new information against these criteria before concluding that exceptional circumstances did not exist meant it did not perform its procedural duty as required by s 473DD. The court relied on previous cases such as AUS17 269 CLR 494 and BVD17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2019) 268 CLR 29, which emphasized the mandatory nature of taking certain considerations into account in the assessment process.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, and the orders of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia were set aside. The IAA was required to conduct its review according to law, and the Minister was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.