DVO16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

In the matters of DVO16 and BNB17, the appellants sought protection visas. Their applications were initially refused by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, with each appellant having been assisted by an interpreter during their interviews. Subsequently, the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) conducted a review of these decisions under Part 7AA of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). In DVO16's case, the IAA was unaware of any translation errors, while in BNB17's case, the IAA was aware of three such errors. In neither instance did the IAA exercise its powers to obtain new information. The IAA affirmed the delegate's decisions to refuse the protection visas, leading to the present appeals.

The central legal issues before the High Court of Australia were whether the IAA's exercise of its powers was unreasonable, and whether the IAA had failed to comply with its statutory duty to "review" the delegate's decision under Part 7AA of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), particularly in light of alleged translation errors during the initial interviews.

The High Court reasoned that the translation errors, while present, were not of a fundamental nature that would vitiate the review process. In BNB17's case, the errors were considered in the context of legal unreasonableness. For DVO16, although the errors may have deflected the appellant from fully elaborating on his case of persecution based on ethnicity, they did not entirely prevent him from presenting his case or preclude the IAA from understanding its substance. The Court noted that DVO16's interview still focused on the same incidents and allegations as his written claim, and the IAA had made findings in relation to these. Consequently, the Court concluded that the IAA's process could properly be described as a review of the delegate's decision.

Accordingly, the High Court ordered that each appeal be dismissed with costs.