The Court held that the Tribunal's decision to determine a protection visa review on the papers under s 426A(1A)(a) rather than dismissing under s 426A(1A)(b) was not legally unreasonable in circumstances where the applicant had a history of non-engagement (failing to attend the delegate's interview, providing no further material to the Tribunal, and not responding to the hearing invitation), no adjournment had been sought, and the Tribunal's non-satisfaction was based on insufficiency of evidence rather than unresolved credibility concerns. DNK17 v Minister [2024] FCA 975 was distinguished on four grounds: the applicant's pattern of non-engagement, the absence of credibility findings requiring resolution at hearing, the absence of any adjournment request, and the fact that the hearing was always to be conducted by telephone with the applicant given notice and opportunity to confirm the contact number.
The full text is available to signed-in members.