SZBNQ v MIMIA

The applicants, SZBNQ and others, sought judicial review of decisions made by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (MIMIA) to refuse their applications for protection visas. The applicants were citizens of Afghanistan and had arrived in Australia by boat. The core of the dispute concerned the Minister's assessment of whether the applicants had a well-founded fear of persecution for a reason specified in the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and whether they would suffer significant hardship if returned to Afghanistan. The matter came before the High Court of Australia on appeal from the Full Federal Court.

The High Court was required to determine whether the Minister, in assessing the applicants' claims for protection visas, had failed to afford them procedural fairness. Specifically, the applicants argued that the Minister had relied on adverse information that had not been disclosed to them, thereby preventing them from responding to that information and presenting their case fully. The central legal issue was the scope of the duty to provide procedural fairness in the context of administrative decision-making under the *Migration Act*, particularly concerning the disclosure of adverse information.

Gummow and Heydon JJ held that the Minister's delegate had failed to provide procedural fairness. Their Honours reasoned that where an administrative decision-maker proposes to make a decision adverse to an applicant, and that decision is based on information which is adverse to the applicant and which has not been made known to them, the decision-maker must give the applicant a reasonable opportunity to deal with that information. In this instance, the delegate had relied on a country information report that contained adverse material regarding the applicants' claims, but this report had not been provided to the applicants. Consequently, the applicants were denied a fair opportunity to respond to the material that ultimately formed the basis of the adverse decision.

The High Court allowed the appeal and quashed the decisions of the Minister. The matter was remitted to the Minister for reconsideration according to law.