The principle in BCR16 — that a decision-maker under s 501CA(4) commits jurisdictional error by declining to consider claims of fear of harm on the basis that non-refoulement obligations will be addressed in a subsequent protection visa application — applies equally where the decision-maker is the Tribunal bound by Ministerial Direction No 65, because paragraph 14.1(4) of that Direction is inconsistent with the Migration Act and therefore invalid under s 499(2).
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 15 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 15 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.