CRS20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

The applicant, who claims to be a stateless Faili Kurd born in Iraq, challenges the decision of the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) to refuse to grant him a protection visa. The matter was remitted to the IAA for re-determination following an appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court. The applicant now seeks judicial review of the Second IAA Decision on three grounds. The central issue in this case is whether the Second IAA Decision was infected by jurisdictional error due to apprehended bias and whether the IAA erred in rejecting the applicant's claim of statelessness. The court was required to determine if the IAA's consideration of certain highly prejudicial but irrelevant information led to a reasonable apprehension of bias and if the IAA's rejection of the applicant's statelessness claim was erroneous.

The court examined the two-step test for apprehended bias as outlined in CNY17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] HCA 50. The court noted that the Full Court in FSG17 (FC) had found that the IAA's receipt of highly prejudicial information, despite disavowing reliance on it, might have subconsciously affected its decision-making. The court found that the nature of the information in question was such that a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that it could subconsciously influence the IAA's decision, despite the IAA's express disavowal of reliance on this information. The court held that the IAA's rejection of the applicant's statelessness claim was also erroneous, as it failed to adequately address the applicant's evidence and circumstances.

Based on the findings, the court allowed the application for judicial review. The decision of the IAA was quashed, and the matter was remitted back to the IAA for re-determination, with directions to appropriately address the issues of apprehended bias and the applicant's statelessness claim.