Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte HB

The applicant, HB, an unrepresented individual held in immigration detention, sought constitutional writs from the High Court of Australia against the Refugee Review Tribunal. The dispute concerned the Tribunal's rejection of HB's application for a protection visa, which was based on a claim of refugee status due to persecution related to his Berber activism in Algeria.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether HB had demonstrated jurisdictional error on the part of the Refugee Review Tribunal, thereby establishing a reasonably arguable case for the issuance of an order nisi for constitutional writs under s 75(v) of the Constitution. This involved considering allegations of apprehended bias and whether the Tribunal's mention of humanitarian considerations constituted a jurisdictional error.

Kirby J reasoned that the Tribunal's statement regarding humanitarian issues accurately reflected the limits of its jurisdiction, which is confined to determining eligibility for a protection visa. The power to grant a visa on humanitarian grounds rests solely with the Minister. His Honour found that HB's core complaint was that the Tribunal had reached the wrong factual conclusion, which did not, without more, amount to jurisdictional error. Despite acknowledging HB's disadvantage as an unrepresented litigant, Kirby J concluded that none of the grounds relied upon by the applicant were reasonably arguable, and there was no evidence of jurisdictional error. Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs.