Dep18 v Minister for Home Affairs

The applicant, Dep18, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA). The dispute concerned the IAA's finding that the applicant did not suffer from memory problems, a conclusion reached "in the absence of corroborative evidence." The applicant contended that this conclusion was illogical, irrational, or unreasonable. The matter was heard by Judge Young in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the IAA's determination that there was no corroborating evidence for the applicant's claimed memory problems was unreasonable. This required the court to consider the meaning of "corroborative evidence" in the context of the IAA's review powers, particularly in light of section 473FA(2) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), which states the IAA is not bound by technicalities, legal forms, or the rules of evidence. The court also had to assess the relevance and weight of a letter provided by Ms. Tate, which indicated the applicant was symptomatic for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

Judge Young reasoned that the respondent's submission, focusing on the admissibility of Ms. Tate's letter under the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth), was too narrow given the IAA's broad review powers. The court acknowledged that Ms. Tate's letter did not explicitly diagnose memory problems or link them to the applicant's mental health. However, the judge found that the IAA's interpretation of "corroborative evidence" might have been too restrictive. While the applicant's membership in a class of persons who have experienced torture and trauma does not automatically prove individual memory problems, Ms. Tate's letter, indicating PTSD symptoms and noting other aspects of the applicant's history suggestive of impaired mental functioning, was not entirely neutral. The court noted that PTSD is notoriously associated with memory deficits.

Ultimately, the court was not satisfied that the IAA's conclusion that there was no corroborating evidence of the applicant's memory problems was unreasonable. The application for judicial review was dismissed.