DST18 v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, DST18, sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) to refuse a protection visa. The dispute centred on whether the IAA had correctly applied section 473DD of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) when assessing the applicant's claims, particularly in relation to fears of harm upon return to Sri Lanka. The applicant argued that the IAA had erred by disbelieving parts of his evidence and finding other fears not to be well-founded, and that the IAA had overlooked material evidence or made findings without a factual basis.

The primary legal issue before the Federal Court was whether the IAA had committed a jurisdictional error in its application of section 473DD of the *Migration Act*. This section governs the circumstances under which the IAA can consider "new information" when reviewing a decision to refuse a visa. The applicant contended that the IAA had wrongly excluded a part of his claim, which was based on an imputed political opinion as a failed asylum seeker who was also a witness to killings in incarceration.

Justice Driver, in her reasoning, referred to the case of *AYK17*, which involved a similar situation. In *AYK17*, the applicant had submitted that their fear of harm was linked to being rounded up with others and witnessing the deaths of inmates, which would make their imputed political opinion distinct from a general claim of failed asylum. The court in *AYK17* accepted that if a new claim or an elaboration of an existing claim relies on "new information" – meaning knowledge of a fact, subject, or event not previously before the original decision-maker – then the IAA cannot consider it unless specific conditions under section 473DD are met. The court found that the applicant's claim in *AYK17*, which relied on "new information" about witnessing killings, fell within this prohibition.

The court concluded that the IAA had made a jurisdictional error in its application of section 473DD. The IAA had treated the applicant's elaborated claim, which included the aspect of being a witness to killings, as relying on "new information" and therefore excluded it from consideration without properly satisfying the requirements of section 473DD. Consequently, the decision of the IAA was set aside.