EFX18 v Minister for Immigration

This case involved an application for judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) which affirmed a delegate's refusal to grant the applicant a Safe Haven Enterprise visa. The applicant, a citizen of Afghanistan, sought review under s 476 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered the applicant's grounds of review, which primarily concerned the IAA's consideration of country information and the alleged failure to disclose a certificate that prevented certain materials from being disclosed to the applicant.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the IAA erred in its consideration of country information, whether it erred in its assessment of "new information" provided by the applicant, and whether the failure to disclose a certificate issued under s 473GB of the Act amounted to procedural unfairness. The Court was required to determine if any of these issues constituted jurisdictional error, as it could not undertake a merits review of the IAA's decision.

The Court reasoned that the applicant's first ground of review, alleging incorrect country information, failed because the applicant did not identify specific information that was incorrect and instead expressed a general disagreement with the IAA's findings. The Court affirmed that the assessment and accuracy of country information were matters for the IAA. Regarding the second ground, which alleged judicial error, the Court found that the applicant's submissions largely invited a merits review and that the IAA had adequately considered the applicant's claims regarding his reasons for leaving Afghanistan and the risks he might face. The Court also addressed the IAA's consideration of new information, noting that the IAA correctly applied the cumulative requirements of s 473DD of the Act and was not satisfied that certain new claims and country information met these requirements. The Court also considered the issue of the undisclosed certificate, noting that the High Court's decision in *BVD17 v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection* [2019] HCA 34 addressed similar concerns about procedural fairness in relation to such certificates.

Ultimately, the Court found no jurisdictional error in the IAA's decision. The Court was satisfied that the applicant had been afforded procedural fairness, particularly in light of the adjournment granted to allow for the translation of the Minister's submissions. Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed.