FET18 v Minister for Home Affairs (No 2)

In the case of FET18 v Minister for Home Affairs (No 2), the appellant sought review of a decision of the Immigration Assessment Authority, which affirmed a delegate's decision not to grant the appellant a safe haven enterprise visa. The appellant had requested that the Authority consider new information in the form of a letter and a report. The legal issues in the case involved whether the Authority erred in failing to consider the new information, whether it acted unreasonably in forming the requisite state of satisfaction, whether it misunderstood the statutory requirements and failed to perform its statutory duty, and whether it took an incorrect view of the relevance of the new information.

The court found that the Authority's decision not to consider the new information was not unreasonable. The court held that the Authority's satisfaction that there are exceptional circumstances to justify considering new information is an evaluative judgment, and what will amount to "exceptional circumstances" must depend on the particular circumstances of the visa applicant's case. The court found that the Authority was not required to consider the new information because it was not satisfied that there were exceptional circumstances to justify considering it. The court also found that the Authority did not misunderstand the statutory requirements or fail to perform its statutory duty. Finally, the court found that the Authority's consideration of the relevance of the new information was not unreasonable.

The court granted leave to the appellant to amend his notice of appeal in relation to a report prepared jointly by two organisations described as Journalists for Democracy in Sri Lanka and the International Truth and Justice Project. The court found that the appellant's claim that the Authority's state of satisfaction about the relevance of the report was required to be formed reasonably and the Authority failed to conform to that implied statutory requirement because it incorrectly treated the information as not supporting the appellant's claims for protection had sufficient merit. The court found that the appellant's claim that the Authority was not properly informed about what was required by the applicable statutory provisions and thereby failed to perform its statutory duty did not have sufficient merit. The court dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs.