SZQQA v Minister for Immigration

SZQQA, an Indian citizen, applied for a protection visa in Australia, claiming that he was at risk of persecution in India because of the alleged murder of his brother in 1991. The application was ultimately refused. He sought review of that decision in the Federal Magistrates Court. The primary issue in the case was whether the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) had failed to comply with the procedural requirements of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) in relation to the content of its s.424A letter and whether the Tribunal erred in making a decision after the Applicant responded to the s.424A letter but before the expiration of the prescribed period for a response. The Applicant also contended that the Tribunal engaged in a process of reasoning that was illogical, irrational and not based on findings or inferences of fact supported by logical grounds.

The Federal Magistrate found that the Tribunal had not failed to comply with the requirements of s.424A of the Act. The Tribunal had given the Applicant clear particulars of the information that the Tribunal considered would be the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision that was under review and had ensured, as far as reasonably practicable, that the Applicant understood why the information was relevant to the review. The Tribunal had also given the Applicant a real opportunity to respond, in accordance with s.424B of the Act. The prescribed period for the Applicant to respond had been correctly stated in the second s.424A letter and the Applicant had provided a response within that period. The Tribunal was authorised under the Migration Act to proceed to make a decision on the review at the time that it did. However, the Tribunal had failed to comply with s.424A of the Act in relation to the content of its s.424A letter. It had not provided the Applicant with “clear particulars” of the information that the Tribunal considered would be the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision that was under review. The Tribunal had failed to provide the Applicant with clear particulars of the information that the Tribunal considered would be the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review and had failed to ensure, as far as reasonably practicable, that the Applicant understood why the information was relevant to the review.

The Federal Magistrate remitted the matter to the Tribunal for redetermination according to law.