Applicant S214/2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal

[2006] FCAFC 166

Full Court of the Federal Court

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Administrative Law
2. › Procedural fairness
3. › Refugee Review Tribunal
4. › Inquisitorial proceedings
5. › Duty to raise critical issues with applicant
6. › Whether Tribunal required to warn applicant that corroborative evidence from family member would be rejected
7. › Whether failure to warn constituted jurisdictional error
1. Immigration
2. › Refugees
3. › Review of protection visa refusal
4. › Credibility findings
5. › Post-hearing evidence
6. › Statutory declaration from family member
7. › Whether Tribunal denied procedural fairness by rejecting corroborative evidence without warning

Quick Take

A Tribunal is not required to warn an applicant that corroborative evidence submitted after a hearing will be rejected where the critical issue is the applicant's own credibility, which was squarely raised at the hearing. The duty to raise critical issues with an applicant does not extend to every piece of evidence that is germane but not central to the determination. WACO is confined to cases where the rejected documents were central to the claim and the finding of forgery was not put to the applicant.