DCT19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

This matter concerned an application for judicial review of a decision by the Authority, which affirmed the refusal to grant the applicant a protection visa. The applicant, an Iraqi citizen, claimed he was at risk of harm from Shia militias, specifically the Mehdi Army, due to operating a music shop and failing to close it when ordered. The Authority had accepted the applicant's core claims regarding the music shop and threats but found the risk of harm was too remote, partly because the Mehdi Army no longer existed and it would be reasonable for the applicant to modify his behaviour. The proceedings were before Driver J in the Federal Circuit Court.

The applicant advanced four grounds of review. These included allegations that the Authority erred by failing to consider a statutory declaration made shortly after the Authority's decision was made, by failing to address specific evidence explaining why the militia might not have continued searching for him, by making a finding without sufficient supporting evidence regarding the current status of the Mehdi Army, and by failing to consider the cumulative effect of the various risks of harm. The Minister submitted that the Authority had not erred on any of these grounds.

Driver J accepted the Minister's submissions on all grounds. Regarding the statutory declaration, the Court found that the Authority was *functus officio* once its decision was made and affirmed, and it had no power to vary or revoke that decision, even if new information was provided shortly thereafter. The Court also found that the Authority's finding that the Mehdi Army no longer existed was based on country information and that it was open to the Authority to speculate on the fate of its members. Furthermore, the Court held that even if the applicant's claims were considered cumulatively, it would not have produced a different result.

Consequently, Driver J concluded that the applicant had failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error in the Authority's decision. The application was therefore dismissed, and the parties were to be heard on costs.