The Federal Court held that a Tribunal conducting review under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act must consider international non-refoulement claims raised by an applicant under paragraph 9.1.2 of Direction 110, even where the applicant's protection visa application has been finally refused and no protection finding exists. The Court rejected the Minister's contention that refusal of a protection visa necessarily forecloses further consideration of non-refoulement obligations, holding that Direction 110 distinguishes between statutory 'protection obligations' and broader international 'non-refoulement obligations', and that paragraph 9.1.2(1) mandates consideration of the latter where raised. The Court also held that proofreading errors in a Tribunal decision, including copying text from unrelated decisions referencing the wrong drug and incorrect legal representatives, did not give rise to apprehended bias where the reasons as a whole demonstrated the Tribunal understood the correct facts.
The full text is available to signed-in members.