CQW17 v Minister for Home Affairs

The applicant, CQW17, sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Assessment Authority (the Authority) which affirmed a decision not to grant a temporary protection visa. The dispute concerned the Authority's obligations when considering inconsistent statements made by an applicant and when dealing with new information containing a new claim.

The court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the Authority was obliged to consider inviting the applicant to provide further information regarding inconsistencies in their statements. Secondly, whether the Authority was required to consider inviting the applicant to provide further information when new information containing a new claim was presented.

The court considered the provisions of Part 7AA of the Act, which governs the fast-track review process. It noted that the Authority generally reviews decisions based on provided material without accepting or requesting new information, or interviewing the applicant, as per s.473DB. However, s.473DD permits the Authority to consider "new information" under specific conditions. Section 473DC(1) grants the Authority the power to obtain new information, while s.473DC(2) clarifies that this is not a duty. Section 473DC(3) outlines how the Authority may obtain new information, including by inviting a person to provide it. The court referenced the principle established in *Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v CRY16*, which held that while the Authority has no duty to obtain information under s.473DC(1), it has the power to do so. This power may, in certain circumstances, give rise to a duty to consider whether to exercise that power and to act reasonably in that consideration. The court noted the Minister's submissions in *CRY16* that the power under s.473DC(3)(b) was purely discretionary and that legal unreasonableness could only apply if the Authority had considered and adversely exercised this power.

The court found that the Authority did not act unreasonably by not considering whether it should invite the applicant to provide further information in relation to the new claim. The application for judicial review was dismissed.