CME15 v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, CME15, challenged a decision made by the Minister for Immigration. The core of the dispute concerned the level of specificity required when identifying "issues" for the purpose of procedural fairness obligations under section 425(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The matter was heard by Judge Nicholls in the Federal Court of Australia.

The legal issue before the Court was to determine the appropriate level of granularity at which an "issue" must be identified and communicated to an applicant to satisfy the requirements of procedural fairness under section 425(1). This involved considering whether a broad characterisation of an issue, such as an applicant's credibility, was sufficient, or if specific factual elements that might determine the outcome of the decision needed to be separately identified.

The Court, referencing previous decisions such as *BMF16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection* and *ABV16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection*, applied the principle that procedural fairness requires a decision-maker to bring to an applicant's attention the critical issues or factors on which the administrative decision is likely to turn. The guiding principle is fairness, aimed at avoiding practical injustice. The Court noted that the obligation to give notice of issues should not be discharged at a high level of generality. Instead, critical issues must be identified with a level of specificity that gives meaning to the opportunity to respond. The Court illustrated this by referring to a scenario where a specific factual element, such as the marital status of an applicant's parents, could be determinative of a claim, and that failing to notify the applicant of this specific issue, even if it fell under a broader category of credibility, would betray an unfairness that section 425(1) was intended to prevent.