Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v Boa18

In the matter of Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v Boa18, the appeal was brought by the Minister against orders made by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia on 20 July 2020. The Federal Circuit Court ordered a writ of certiorari to quash the decision of the Immigration Assessment Authority (the Authority) made on 12 August 2019 and a writ of mandamus to require the Authority to redetermine the review according to law. The Minister argued that the Federal Circuit Court had erred in finding that the Authority had committed a jurisdictional error in reviewing the decision of a delegate under Pt 7AA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The respondents, a family of Sri Lankan Tamils, had applied for protection visas, with the first respondent making claims on behalf of the family, including claims of involvement with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The Authority had affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the application, and the respondents sought judicial review of this decision. The Federal Circuit Court found that the Authority had unreasonably failed to consider inviting the second respondent to provide new information on the first respondent's late claims of LTTE involvement. On remitter from the Federal Circuit Court, the Authority reaffirmed the delegate's decision, but the respondents claimed this decision was flawed due to apprehended bias and procedural unfairness.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Authority had unreasonably failed to consider inviting the second respondent to provide new information on the first respondent's LTTE involvement, and whether the Authority's conduct of the second review gave rise to apprehended bias. The court considered whether the Authority had failed to properly exercise its discretion to invite the second respondent to provide new information and whether this failure constituted a jurisdictional error. The court also examined whether the Authority's conduct of the second review, which was completed within 12 working days without inviting the respondents to provide further information or make submissions, gave rise to apprehended bias or procedural unfairness. The court assessed whether the Authority's actions demonstrated an intention to complete the review in the shortest possible time, potentially influenced by the Federal Circuit Court's remitter.

The court found that the Authority had indeed failed to consider inviting the second respondent to provide new information on the first respondent's LTTE involvement, which constituted a jurisdictional error. The court concluded that the Authority's conduct of the second review did not give rise to apprehended bias or procedural unfairness. The Authority's expeditious review did not demonstrate an intention to complete the review in the shortest possible time due to any unwelcome process forced by the Federal Circuit Court. The court held that the Authority's actions were not influenced by any bias or procedural unfairness. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the orders made by the Federal Circuit Court were set aside. In lieu of those orders, the respondents' amended application for judicial review was dismissed. The court directed that the parties be heard regarding the costs of the amended application for judicial review and the costs of the appeal.