DNB16 v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, DNB16, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The dispute concerned the AAT's refusal to grant the applicant a complementary protection visa, a decision the applicant contended was made in error. The matter came before Judge Heffernan of the Federal Circuit Court.

The court was required to determine eight grounds of review raised by the applicant. These grounds alleged that the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error by failing to grant a complementary protection visa despite the applicant's claim of danger to life, by not recusing a member due to apprehended bias and derogatory remarks made about a friend, by failing to adhere to principles of equity and fair play when an objection to a member was raised, and by failing to comply with the procedural requirements of section 359A of the *Migration Act 1958*. Specifically, the applicant argued the Tribunal erred by not providing clear particulars of information it relied upon, not inviting the applicant to respond to that information, and not explaining the relevance or consequences of such information, particularly given the applicant was unrepresented. Further grounds alleged jurisdictional error in not providing requested documents under the *Freedom of Information Act 1982* and in making statements indicating a prejudged view on the applicant's credibility, constituting apprehended bias.

Judge Heffernan found that the Tribunal had committed jurisdictional error by failing to comply with section 359A of the *Migration Act 1958*. The court reasoned that the Tribunal had a statutory obligation to provide the applicant with clear particulars of any information that would form the reason, or part of the reason, for affirming the decision under review. This obligation included ensuring the applicant understood the relevance and consequences of that information and inviting them to comment or respond. The court noted that the applicant was unrepresented and had specifically requested documents under the *Freedom of Information Act*, which were not provided. The Tribunal's failure to provide these particulars and afford the applicant a meaningful opportunity to respond, especially in light of the applicant's vulnerability and lack of legal representation, vitiated the Tribunal's decision. The court also found that the Tribunal member's remarks regarding the applicant's parents, in the context of the applicant's fear for their lives, demonstrated apprehended bias, as they indicated a prejudged view on a fundamental aspect of the applicant's claim.

The court ordered that the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal be set aside.