CMH16 v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, CMH16, contended that the Authority breached the rules of procedural fairness by failing to raise the possibility that certain emails might not be genuine. The applicant further argued that the Authority acted unreasonably, or alternatively, was legally unreasonable, in concluding the emails were fraudulent without first raising this issue, exercising its inquisitorial powers to gather further information, or considering the exercise of those powers. The court was required to determine whether the Authority's conduct constituted a breach of procedural fairness and whether its decision was legally unreasonable in the circumstances.

The court considered the principles of procedural fairness as articulated in *Commissioner for Australian Capital Territory Revenue v Alphaone Pty Ltd*, which establish a person's entitlement to present information and submissions to a decision-maker, to rebut adverse material, and to be informed of critical issues or adverse conclusions not apparent from the known material. However, the court also noted that a decision-maker is not obliged to expose their provisional views. The court also examined section 473DA(1) of the *Migration Act*, which states that Division 3 of Part 7AA is an exhaustive statement of the natural justice hearing rule requirements for reviews conducted by the Authority. This provision has been interpreted by this Court and the Federal Court of Australia as excluding the common law hearing rule.

The court found that section 473DA(1) of the *Migration Act* provides an exhaustive statement of the requirements of the natural justice hearing rule in relation to reviews conducted by the Authority. The language of this provision was held to be sufficiently clear to exclude the common law hearing rule. Therefore, the applicant's arguments regarding a breach of procedural fairness based on the failure to raise the genuineness of the emails or the alleged unreasonableness of the decision were not sustained. The court's reasoning focused on the statutory exclusion of the common law hearing rule by section 473DA(1).