Din16 v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, Din16, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Minister for Immigration. The dispute concerned the adequacy of the material provided by the Department to the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) for the review of a "fast track reviewable decision" made under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The matter came before Emmett J of the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Department had complied with its obligations under section 473CB of the Act in providing "review material" to the IAA. This involved determining the scope of the material required, particularly concerning the statement of findings of fact, the evidence on which those findings were based, and the reasons for the decision, as well as the provision of contact details for the applicant. The Court also considered the effect of section 473DA, which states that Division 3 of Part 7AA is an exhaustive statement of the natural justice hearing rule in relation to IAA reviews.

Emmett J reasoned that section 473CB prescribes the specific material that must be provided to the IAA. The Court noted that section 473DA limits the natural justice hearing rule to what is provided within Part 7AA, and importantly, does not require the IAA to provide the applicant with material that was before the Minister when the original decision was made. The Court's analysis focused on the precise wording of section 473CB(1)(a), which mandates a statement setting out findings of fact, referring to the evidence, and giving reasons for the decision. The Court found that the material provided by the Department did not satisfy these requirements, as it failed to adequately set out the findings of fact and the evidence upon which those findings were based.

The Court concluded that the failure to provide the required material constituted a jurisdictional error. Consequently, the decision of the Minister was not a "privative clause decision" and was therefore amenable to review. The Court ordered that the decision of the Minister be set aside.