The Court held that where the Administrative Review Tribunal defers assessment of non-refoulement obligations under paragraph 9.1.2(2) of Direction No. 110, it must still independently assess the factual claims of harm underpinning the non-refoulement claim and weigh them in the balance when considering impediments to removal and legal consequences under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii); merely acknowledging that the applicant holds fears of harm, without assessing whether those fears are well-founded, constitutes jurisdictional error. The Court also held that the possible future grant of a bridging visa, or removal to a third country such as Nauru, are not 'legal consequences' of a decision not to revoke visa cancellation and the Tribunal is not required to speculate about such contingent possibilities, even for applicants who may fall within the NZYQ cohort.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.