CUS15 v Minister for Immigration and Anor (No.2)

In CUS15 v Minister for Immigration and Anor (No.2), the applicant sought judicial review of a decision made by the Tribunal. The core of the applicant's challenge concerned the Tribunal's adverse credibility findings, which the applicant argued were based on a false factual premise. Specifically, the applicant contended that the Tribunal's finding that he had provided false information under oath at two interviews was incorrect because he had not been sworn at the first interview, and the oath administered at the second interview was defective.

The legal issues before the Federal Court were whether the Tribunal had committed jurisdictional error by relying on a false factual premise regarding the applicant's credibility. The Minister argued that even if the applicant was not sworn at the first interview, he was still cautioned about the importance of truthfulness. Furthermore, the Minister contended that the oath at the second interview was valid, and any factual error by the Tribunal was not material to its overall conclusion on credibility, especially given multiple other reasons for adverse findings.

The Court considered established principles regarding the review of credibility findings, noting that while such findings are primarily the function of the decision-maker, they are susceptible to review for jurisdictional error. The Court referenced authorities such as AIC15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, ARG15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, and CQG15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, which outline grounds for jurisdictional error in credibility assessments, including failure to afford procedural fairness, lack of a logical basis, unreasonableness, or other recognised grounds. The Court's task was to conduct a case-specific inquiry into whether the Tribunal's specific findings, based on the alleged false premise, constituted jurisdictional error.