The Court held that the IAA's failure to interview applicants or obtain photographs before departing from the delegate's finding that they were brothers was not legally unreasonable, because the Authority's different finding was based on inconsistencies and implausibilities in documentary evidence and country information rather than on any assessment of the applicants' demeanour, thereby distinguishing ABT17. On the s 473DD issue, the Court held that while the Authority erred by failing to assess the Oncall information against s 473DD(b)(ii) before considering exceptional circumstances under s 473DD(a), non-compliance with s 473DD does not of itself constitute jurisdictional error in the substantive review decision — the error must be material to the ultimate decision on review, not merely to the procedural gatekeeping decision under s 473DD. On the facts, the Oncall information was of such marginal significance that its consideration could not realistically have affected the review outcome.
The full text is available to signed-in members.