AZG18 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 2126

1. On 23 November 2016, the applicant was invited to attend an interview with a delegate of the Minister (delegate) [4].
2. On 12 December 2016, the applicant attended the delegate interview with the assistance of an interpreter in the Tamil language. Relevantly, the applicant gave evidence at the interview that he had no links to the LTTE and had not participated in any political organisations and that three classmates who had been involved in the Pongu Thamil rally had disappeared in July 2003 and no-one knew what had happened to them. The applicant also provided his and his children's identification documents along with his marriage certificate.
3. On 24 May 2017, the delegate refused the applicant's SHEV application. The delegate found among other things that the applicant's low-level involvement with a Pongu Thamil rally in 2003 did not give him a profile which would attract adverse attention if he were to return to Sri Lanka. Consequently, the applicant was found not to be a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations pursuant to ss 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act), nor was the delegate satisfied that the applicant would suffer serious harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being returned to Sri Lanka[5].

Referral to the Immigration Assessment Authority

1. On 29 May 2017, the Authority notified the applicant that the delegate's decision had been referred to it for review. Correspondence from the Authority informed the applicant that the IAA had been provided with all documents the Department considered relevant to his case, including any material that the applicant had provided prior to the delegate's decision. The applicant was informed that the Authority would make its decision on the basis of the information received from the Department, unless it decided to consider new information, which it would only do in limited circumstances. The circumstances in which the Authority might consider new information were explained in a Practice Direction which accompanied notification of the referral.
2. On 9 June 2017, the applicant requested and received a copy of his SHEV interview recording[6].
3. On 16 June 2017, the applicant appointed a representative in connection with the review. The applicant's representative requested an extension of time to make submissions, which the Authority granted[7].
4. On 30 June 2017, the applicant's representative made written submissions on behalf of the applicant[8]. In summary they were that:

(a) due to fear and emotional distress the applicant had not been able to present evidence at the PV interview;

(b) the applicant does not recall telling the delegate that he organised a bus, but may have said that he organised transport for event organisers to travel to the Tamil rally in June 2003;

(c) three of his friends "who did like [the applicant] and participated in the event" disappeared, but he luckily managed to escape;

(d) after the Pongu Thamil rally, many related active participants of Pongu Thamil were kidnapped and missing, or shot to death by unidentified groups. This situation continues there;

(e) he firmly believes that his abduction was related to his previous participation in demonstrations or on suspicion of supporting the LTTE;

(f) the applicant's severely bad experiences in the past have made him want to leave Sri Lanka, he could not finish his studies and did not have a family life in the last 13 years;

(g) the applicant became a person of interest to the Sri Lankan Government Forces by association with the friends who had participated in LTTE organised events;

(h) since he fled Sri Lanka, his family has been the subject of threatening phone calls;

(i) it is not possible for the applicant to relocate within Sri Lanka due to his education and the attitude of people in Sri Lanka towards strangers in their local area;

(j) the applicant would not be afforded adequate state protection as the Sri Lankan Government Forces are the source of persecution. The ongoing clampdown on LTTE supporters and sympathisers makes return dangerous;

(k) he would have a profile as a failed asylum seeker/returnee from a western country on return to Sri Lanka; and

(l) the applicant would be identified as having not insubstantial links to the LTTE, therefore at risk on return to Sri Lanka, with reference to UNHCR guidelines.

1. The applicant submitted that he remains fearful because of recent events. In that respect, two of the claims made in the submissions had not been raised previously. First, the applicant submitted that:

After the Pongu Thamil rally many students, businessman and related active participants of Pongu Thamil were kidnapped and missing or shot to death by unidentified groups.... this situation is still continuing there... Last year in September 2016 there was an event called Eluga Thamil demonstration in Jaffna. After this event two university students were shot to death by the police on 20 October 2016.

Secondly, the applicant also submitted that since his departure from Sri Lanka, his family had received threatening phone calls[9].

1. In support of the applicant's submissions, his representative provided copies of country information, including four links to articles respectively entitled[10]:

(1) "SLA soldiers attack students inside Jaffna Advanced Technological Institute";

(2) "Shooting of V. Sulakshan and N. Gajan";

(3) "White van abductions and Sri Lanka's terror regime"; and

(4) "Sri Lanka's sinister white van abductions"

1. The submissions also provided a link to a book entitled "Critical Methods in Terrorism Studies"[11].
2. A copy of the four online articles was subsequently provided to the Authority on 7 August 2017.
3. The Authority conducted its review without inviting the applicant to an oral hearing.

1. On 5 February 2018, the Authority affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse to grant the SHEV[12].
2. The substance of Authority's decision was summarised by the Minister in their written outline of submissions filed in the judicial review proceeding. At [14]-[29] of that written outline, the Minister says:

New information

1. The Authority identified that claims advanced in the submission of 30 June 2017 that 2 students were shot dead by police on 20 October 2016 after an event called Eluga Thamil held in September 2016, and the Wikipedia article about this shooting provided on 7 August 2017, were new information that was not before the delegate: [5]. The Authority acknowledged that at the SHEV interview the applicant had mentioned 2 people being killed at Jaffna University 2 months prior, but found that their names, the dates and the Wikipedia article were new information. The Authority was not satisfied that the information could not have been provided prior to the delegate's decision nor that it was credible personal information, and found that ss 473DD(b)(i) and (ii) were not satisfied. Further, the Authority found that there were not exceptional circumstances to justify considering the information.

2. The Authority identified that the claim that the applicant's family had received threatening telephone calls constituted new information: [11]. The Authority was not satisfied that this information could not have been provided prior to the delegate's decision, or that it was credible personal information, noting the lack of detail provided as to when the calls started, who they were targeted at, or their content, in circumstances where he had said at the SHEV interview that his family had not received any threats. The Authority found that ss 473DD(b)(i) and (ii) were not satisfied, and further found that there were not exceptional reasons for considering this new information.

3. The Authority found that the submissions of 30 June 2017 contained hyperlinks to 4 other articles, and that copies of only 3 of those had subsequently been provided. With respect to the article for which no copy was provided, the Authority found that the provision of a hyperlink within the submissions did not comply with the relevant Practice Direction and therefore did not satisfy s 473FB of the Act. The Authority did not take the hyperlinked article into account on this basis: [6].

4. The Authority found that the 3 articles which were provided all pre-dated the delegate's decision and consist of general country information, rather than personal information. The Authority was not satisfied that the applicant could not have provided them before the delegate's decision nor that they were credible personal information, and accordingly found that ss 473DD(b)(i) and (ii) were not met. Further, the Authority found that there were not exceptional circumstances to justify considering the information: [7]. Similarly, the Authority found that other new country information referred to in the submissions did not satisfied ss 473DD(b)(i) or (ii): [9].

5. The Authority found that the student registration document submitted on 30 June 2017 was credible personal information, but was not satisfied that it may have affected the consideration of the applicant's claims given it was accepted by the delegate that the applicant was a student. The Authority also found that there was no explanation for why the document had not been submitted prior to the delegate's decision being made, and found that it could have been provided with the visa application or at the SHEV interview. The Authority was not satisfied that there were exceptional circumstances for considering this document: [10]. It can be inferred from these findings that the Authority was not satisfied that ss 473DD(b)(i) or (ii), or s 473DD(a), were satisfied.

Claims

1. The Authority accepted on the basis of country information that the Pongu Thamil event was held in June 2003 at Jaffna University, that it was organised by students and that it had the backing of the LTTE: [20]. It had regard to country information that organisers received threatening phone calls, and attempts made on their lives: [20].
2. The Authority accepted that the applicant was a participant in the event as he was a student at the time: [21]. However, it noted that while his statement accompanying the visa application claimed that he was part of the organising committee, his evidence at the SHEV interview was that his role was limited to arranging transport, and he accepted it was not high profile: [16]-[18], [21]. The Authority did not accept that the applicant was on the organising committee, or that his picture was in the media, noting that he had provided no evidence of this picture and he had not directly been threatened by the authorities because of his involvement: [21]. The Authority accepted that the applicant may have been filmed at the event, but that he would have been one of many thousands who were likely also filmed: [21].
3. The Authority accepted that some people known to the applicant who were involved in the Pongu Thamil may have disappeared, given the large number of people who suddenly disappeared or went missing during the conflict: [21]. However, it found that these people were likely to have had a more active or central role than just arranging transport: [21].
4. The Authority accepted that the applicant played a minor role in organising transport, and was present at the Pongu Thamil and may have been filmed. It was not satisfied that he was regarded as an activist or was of interest to the authorities in the lead up to the event, or following it: [22].
5. The Authority accepted that sometime after June 2003 the applicant moved to Vavuniya, noting that his evidence about when this was and why he moved had been inconsistent: [23]. It accepted that round ups were occurring during that time and that the applicant had been involved in a round up, but noted his evidence that he was not arrested or charged and there was no follow up activity from the authorities: [24]. The Authority did not accept that the applicant moved 6 or 7 times while living in Vavuniya, as this had not been mentioned when asked to provide his address history at the entry interview or in the visa application forms, and the claim was not mentioned during the SHEV interview: [25].
6. The Authority further noted that the applicant had been able to obtain a passport and leave the country legally, and had returned to Sri Lanka a number of times without any problems at the airport, and concluded that the applicant was not of any interest to the authorities following his presence at the Pongu Thamil event: [25].
7. The Authority accepted that the applicant had been questioned by police while in Colombo in 2009 or 2010, but found that he was not otherwise harmed and faced no other consequence on his subsequent return visit in 2011 for his failure to report to the police. It found that the police questioning in Colombo was a one-off event with no ongoing significance: [27].

1. I have carefully read the Authority's decision record. I consider the Minister's Outline to be a fair and accurate summation of the Authority's findings and reasoning.

1. The applicant sought judicial review of the Authority's decision. In his amended application filed on 31 March 2025, the applicant seeks to impugn the decision of the Authority by asserting eight grounds of alleged error, namely (verbatim):

Ground 1

The Immigration Assessment Authority did not consider all relevant materials.

Particulars

The Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) did not consider information that was submitted to them as because this information was viewed as 'new information'. The applicant mentioned the killing of two university students at his protection visa (PV) interview on 12 December 2016, but the IAA did not take this information into consideration because this information was not submitted to the delegate of the Minister.

Ground 2

The IAA failed to give proper, realistic and genuine consideration to the applicant's claim.

Particulars

The IAA failed to give proper, realistic and genuine consideration to the applicant's claim because the IAA only concentrated on the fact that some of the information provided by the applicant was not submitted to the delegate of the Minister. The IAA did not consider the difficulty the applicant experienced to obtain the relevant information, and that the applicant's claim is genuine.

Ground 3

The IAA drew the wrong conclusion that the applicant is not a refugee.

Particulars

The IAA did not consider that the applicant is a person of interest in Sri Lanka of his support for the LTTE due to his participation in the Pongu Thamil and his association with the Pongu Thamil event organisers who were supportive of the LTTE.

Ground 4

The IAA's conclusion that the applicant is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations were illogical or irrational manifested a misunderstanding or misconception of the Convention test or arose out of a failure to take relevant information into amount.

Particulars

The IAA was not satisfied that the applicant is a refugee as defined by s 5H(1) of the Act. The IAA found that the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in paragraph 36 (2) (a) of the Migration Act for a protection visa.

Ground 5

The IAA was biased in its decision to affirm the decision of the Department of Home Affairs.

Particulars

The IAA did not consider all the relevant facts and information provided by the applicant. The IAA did not consider the applicants membership to the LTTE and that, because of his association with this group the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the reasons mentioned in his application.

Ground 6

The IAA failed to afford procedural fairness to the applicant. The failure to provide natural justice opportunity related to the information in the possession of the IAA.

Particulars

1. The IAA in its decision at para 19 noted that the applicant in his entry interview failed to mention whether he had ever associated or involved with any political group or organisation or involved in any activities or protests against the government. Based on that the IAA raised adverse concerns on the credibility of the applicant.

2. The Department did not ask the applicant to provide his picture in the media. The IAA drew adverse concern without requesting the applicant to provide the photos. On the other hand the IAA accepted that the applicant may have been videoed for his involvement in Pongu Thamil (see IAA decision para 22). Having accepted it and then said that the applicant did not provide photos is an illogical conclusion. The IAA should have invited the applicant to provide.

Ground 7

The IAA failed to consider relevant considerations.

Particulars

The applicant submitted that he faced extortion. The IAA accepted that the applicant may have been arrested for monetary gain. However, the IAA failed to consider whether the applicant will face serious harm based on his claim of extortion.

Ground 8

The IAA's conclusion and decision are not supported by evidence.

Particulars

1. The IAA concluded that that there is a real chance that the applicant will be fined and he may have to wait for brief period till his family members collects him. However, the IAA failed to assess whether the applicant has the financial capacity, or his family would be able to provide personal surety for his release. If the applicant failed to provide whether he would face prolonged detention and, in that case, whether the prolonged detention many amounts to degrading treatment.
2. The IAA in pars 52 under the assessment of complementary protection found that the applicant is likely to be fined or that surety or guarantee may be imposed. However, the IAA failed to assess or invite the applicant to comment whether he or his family has the capacity to provide. That means, the IAA decision was made based on mere assumption.

1. The applicant filed his initial application for judicial review on 2 March 2018. It contained only the first five grounds. Grounds six, seven and eight were added when the applicant lodged an amended application and accompanying written submissions on 20 March 2025, five days before the final hearing.
2. In preparation for the hearing, the Minister filed two written outlines of submission, the first, dated 3 March 2025, addressed grounds 1 to 5 and the second, dated 20 March 2025, addressed grounds 6 to 8.
3. The application for judicial review was heard on 25 March 2025. The applicant appeared on his own behalf with the assistance of a Tamil interpreter. Ms Stone, a solicitor from Australian Government Solicitor appeared on behalf of the Minister. The Minister did not oppose leave being granted to the applicant to file and rely upon his Amended Application and written submissions dated 19 March 2025.

1. The applicant sought to rely upon his written outline of submissions. It is worthy of note that the applicant's written outline emphasised:

In very broad terms, the Tribunal failed in its duties to engage in active intellectual process to consider my claims for a student (sic) visa.

I specifically request the Honourable Courts to consider my grounds from 6-8.

1. In his oral submissions, the applicant sought to explain errors in the Authority's decision and reasoning process, although he struggled to do so in a manner which corresponded with the grounds in his amended application. Although it was evident that the applicant had a reasonable command of English, he relied on the assistance of the Tamil interpreter.
2. The applicant's submissions were unstructured and at times confusing, but after questioning I have distilled his concerns to the following propositions:

(a) the Authority was wrong to conclude that the applicant had no political involvement. Although he told the delegate that the PT event was organised by students which he did not believe involved political activity, he did not have the opportunity to explain how the PT event would have been perceived as political by the authorities because it was supported by the LTTE;

(b) the Authority was wrong to be critical of the applicant for not having provided a copy of the media photo which showed him to be involved in the PT event. The applicant said that the Authority did not give him an opportunity to provide that evidence;

(c) the Authority should have realised that the applicant did not have an opportunity to fully present his claims for protection at the arrival entry interview and therefore should not have placed too much weight on inconsistencies with any later evidence. The applicant claimed that he was only given 30 to 40 minutes at the arrival interview to explain his claims, that he was rushed through the process, told to make "the main points" and did not have an opportunity to go into detail;

(d) even though the applicant was one of thousands of people involved at the PT event, the Authority failed to appreciate that he had a special or particular role in organising transport. The applicant submitted that organising 600 buses was quite an important function and his involvement was more significant than he was given credit for;

(e) at the SHEV interview, he told the delegate that members of his family had not received any threats. However, if he had been given an opportunity, he would have explained that he was only referring to direct threats (such as a knock on the door) but his family were being watched. He also said if he had been given an opportunity he could have given evidence that his family had received threats more recently;

(f) if he had been given an opportunity to give more detail or more context about his claims, the applicant believes that the Authority would have understood them differently. His complaint is that the Authority should either have sought more information from him or invited him to an interview to explain his claims;

(g) the Authority misunderstood his fear about returning to Sri Lanka and his concerns that he will be identified as a person of interest. The applicant said that the Authority wrongly concluded that only people with a criminal record or involvement with the police encountered difficulty when leaving and returning to the country. The applicant said that officers were on the lookout for other people, such as those with issues with the authorities or involvement with groups; and

(h) the Authority was wrong to find that circumstances for Tamils had changed in Sri Lanka and that they were no longer subjected to systematic discrimination and unfair treatment. The applicant said that just because Tamils had representation in Parliament through an organised political party, that was an insufficient basis for finding that average Tamils were not subjected to discrimination.

1. The Minister's solicitor, Ms Stone, confirmed that the Minister relied upon their written outline of submissions filed on 3 March 2025 in relation to the first 5 grounds of appeal, and on their submissions dated 20 March 2025 in relation to grounds 6, 7 and 8 of the applicant's Amended Application.
2. Ms Stone sought first to address the various arguments and issues raised by the applicant in his oral submissions. In doing so, the Minister submitted that in substance the only ground addressed orally by the applicant was ground 6, that being the claim that the applicant had been denied procedural fairness by not being afforded a proper opportunity to explain his claims or provide further information.
3. The Minister otherwise sought to address the applicant's grounds by reference to the Authority's key findings and the reasoning process which led to those findings being made. I will refer to the detail of the Minister's submissions as necessary elsewhere in these reasons.

1. Before turning to the applicant's grounds (many of which overlap), it is necessary to set out the relevant legal principles which inform the court's assessment of whether the Authority's reasons are affected by jurisdictional error. It is also appropriate to consider the statutory scheme within which the Authority's review took place and how that scheme informs the court's assessment of the Authority's decision.

Part 7AA fast track review process

1. The decision of the Authority was made under the "fast track" review process prescribed in Part 7AA of the Act. That statutory scheme contextualises the Authority's review task and frames the Court's consideration of alleged error.
2. As the High Court observed in Plaintiff M174/2016 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] HCA 16; (2018) 264 CLR 217 at [17]:

[T]he Authority when conducting a review of a fast-track reviewable decision is not concerned with the correction of error on the part of the Minister or delegate but is engaged in a de novo consideration of the merits of the decision that has been referred to it. The task of the Authority [...] is to consider the application for a protection visa afresh and to determine for itself whether or not it is satisfied that the criteria for the grant of the visa have been met.

1. The practical role of the Authority under Part 7AA was helpfully explained by Judge Kelly in CUZ17 v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2019] FCCA 3074 at [24]- [25] where his Honour stated:

[24] In contrast with a review under Pt 5 or Pt 7 of the Act, the fast-track scheme provided by Pt 7AA is a mechanism of limited merits review. Division 3 of Part 7AA variously: provides an exhaustive statement of the natural justice hearing rule respecting a review conducted by the Authority; requires that the Authority should ordinarily conduct its review on the papers; provides for the exceptional, and strictly circumscribed, circumstances in which new information or documents may be sought or employed; and authorises and prescribes the manner in which the Authority may conduct an interview of the applicant or otherwise obtain further information.

[25] In general, the Authority must conduct its review without accepting or requesting new or additional information and without interviewing the applicant. The Authority may, but is under no duty to, get any documents or information that was not before the delegate. Section 473DD proscribes the Authority from considering any new information unless the conditions provided by that section are satisfied. (citations omitted).

1. As stated, under Part 7AA the Authority will ordinarily conduct its review on the papers. There is no duty to conduct a hearing or to request or accept new information from an applicant (s 473DB), other than in the limited circumstances set out in ss 473DC and 473DD.
2. In relation to the receipt of new information, s 473DD provides:

473DD Considering new information in exceptional circumstances

For the purposes of making a decision in relation to a fast track reviewable decision, the Immigration Assessment Authority must not consider any new information unless:

(a) the Authority is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances to justify considering the new information; and

(b) the referred applicant satisfies the Authority that, in relation to any new information given, or proposed to be given, to the Authority by the referred applicant, the new information:

(i) was not, and could not have been, provided to the Minister before the Minister made the decision under section 65; or

(ii) is credible personal information which was not previously known and, had it been known, may have affected the consideration of the referred applicant's claims.

1. In AUS17 v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2020] HCA 37; (2020) 269 CLR 494 at [11]- [12] the High Court held that in considering whether new information should be received, the Authority is required to consider:

(i) first, whether the information is information that could not have been provided to the Minister: s 473DD(b)(i); and

(ii) whether the information is credible personal information: s 473DD(b)(ii) and then

(iii) whether there are exceptional circumstances to justify considering the new information: s 473DD(a).

Requirement to properly consider and engage with the review materials

1. Under the fast-track review scheme, the Authority still has a duty to consider each necessary and relevant consideration[13] and each integer of an applicant's claims[14].
2. The required process of "proper" consideration has been the subject of much judicial commentary. In Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 27; (2022) 275 CLR 582 the plurality (Kiefel CJ, Keane, Gordon and Steward JJ) said at [24]-[27] (omitting footnotes):

[24] Consistently with well-established authority in different statutory contexts, there can be no doubt that a decision-maker must read, identify, understand and evaluate the representations. Adopting and adapting what Kiefel J (as her Honour then was) said in Tickner v Chapman, the decision-maker must have regard to what is said in the representations, bring their mind to bear upon the facts stated in them and the arguments or opinions put forward, and appreciate who is making them. From that point, the decision-maker might sift them, attributing whatever weight or persuasive quality is thought appropriate. The weight to be afforded to the representations is a matter for the decision-maker. And the decision-maker is not obliged "to make actual findings of fact as an adjudication of all material claims" made by a former visa holder.

[25] It is also well-established that the requisite level of engagement by the decision-maker with the representations must occur within the bounds of rationality and reasonableness. What is necessary to comply with the statutory requirement for a valid exercise of power will necessarily depend on the nature, form and content of the representations. The requisite level of engagement - the degree of effort needed by the decision-maker - will vary, among other things, according to the length, clarity and degree of relevance of the representations. The decision-maker is not required to consider claims that are not clearly articulated or which do not clearly arise on the materials before them.

[26] Labels like "active intellectual process" and "proper, genuine and realistic consideration" must be understood in their proper context. These formulas have the danger of creating "a kind of general warrant, invoking language of indefinite and subjective application, in which the procedural and substantive merits of any [decision-maker's] decision can be scrutinised". That is not the correct approach. As Mason J stated in Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd, "[t]he limited role of a court reviewing the exercise of an administrative discretion must constantly be borne in mind". The court does not substitute its decision for that of an administrative decision-maker.

[27] None of the preceding analysis detracts from, or is inconsistent with, established principle that, for example, if review of a decision-maker's reasons discloses that the decision-maker ignored, overlooked or misunderstood relevant facts or materials or a substantial and clearly articulated argument; misunderstood the applicable law; or misunderstood the case being made by the former visa holder, that may give rise to jurisdictional error.

1. Whether or not the Authority engaged in an active intellectual process requires the Court to conduct an evaluative judgment, taking into account the available evidence and reasonable inferences, as to all the relevant facts and circumstances of each case. These include, but are not limited to, the nature and volume of the material placed before the decision-maker, as well as other matters which arise from the relevant statutory context. A finding that a decision-maker has not engaged in an active intellectual process will not lightly be made and must be supported by clear evidence, bearing in mind that the applicant bears the onus of proof[15].
2. A decision-maker can, quite properly, consider a matter by thinking about the matter (including the appropriate weight to attribute to such a matter) without making any findings[16]. The fact that a matter is not mentioned in a statement of reasons does not mean that it was not considered[17]. Where it is apparent that a decision-maker has read a document, the inference that he or she has overlooked or not properly considered a particular part is difficult to draw[18].

Illogicality and irrationality in decision-making

1. Factual findings by a decision-maker must be rationally made and based on probative material and logical grounds[19].
2. Illogicality and irrationality do not solely arise in respect of a decision maker's ultimate conclusion or decision. An illogical or irrational administrative decision, or an illogical or irrational finding of fact or reasoning along the way to making the decision, may establish jurisdictional error if, for example, the decision or finding is not open on the evidence or if there is no logical connection between the evidence and the inferences or conclusions drawn - albeit that the overarching question is always whether the material conclusion is affected by jurisdictional error[20].
3. To demonstrate jurisdictional error on the basis that the decision-maker engaged in a process of reasoning that was illogical, irrational and not based on findings or inferences of fact supported by logical grounds, it is not sufficient to show that the question of fact was one in respect of which reasonable minds might differ[21].
4. In Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611; [2010] HCA 16, Crennan and Bell JJ emphasised at [131] that the test for illogicality or irrationality:

...must be to ask whether logical or rational or reasonable minds might adopt different reasoning or might differ in any decision or finding to be made on evidence upon which the decision is based. If probative evidence can give rise to different processes of reasoning and if logical or rational or reasonable minds might differ in respect of the conclusions to be drawn from that evidence, a decision cannot be said by a reviewing court to be illogical or irrational or unreasonable, simply because one conclusion has been preferred to another possible conclusion.

1. Their Honours further explained at [133] that the correct approach is to ask whether it was open to the decision-maker to engage in the process of reasoning in which it did engage and to make the findings it did make on the material before it.
2. Additional relevant principles concerning a claim of jurisdictional error based on illogical or irrational findings of fact or reasoning were summarised by the Full Court (Griffiths, Perry and Bromwich JJ) in ARG15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 250 FCR 109; [2016] FCAFC 174 at [47]:

Subsequent authorities have established that, for a decision to be vitiated for jurisdictional error based on illogical or irrational findings of fact or reason, "extreme" illogicality or irrationality must be shown "measured against the standard that it is not enough for the question of fact to be one on which reasonable minds may come to different conclusions and against the framework of the inquiry being as to whether or not there has been jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal" (see Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZRKT [2013] FCA 317; (2013) 212 FCR 99 (SZRKT) at [148] per Robertson J; SZOOR v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2012) 202 FCR 1 (SZOOR) at [84] per McKerracher J (with whom Reeves J agreed); and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZUXN [2016] FCA 516; (2016) 69 AAR 210 at [52] per Wigney J). Illogicality or irrationality in that extreme sense may be considered not only in relation to the end result, but also extends to fact finding which leads to the end result, albeit that, as Robertson J emphasised in SZRKT at [151], the overarching question is whether the decision was affected by jurisdictional error (see also the observations of Beech-Jones J in BKE v Offıce of Children's Guardian [2015] NSWSC 523 at [113] and the cases referred to therein).

1. The test for apprehended bias is whether a fair-minded and appropriately informed lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the decision-maker might not bring a fair, impartial and independent mind to the determination of the matter on its merits[22]. Any claim of apprehended bias must be assessed in the context of the relevant legal, statutory and factual framework[23].
2. Apprehended bias is a very serious claim which must be firmly and distinctly made and clearly proven. The standard of proof is high.
3. In ALA15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 30 at [36] the Full Court explained that:

(i) there must be an identification of what it has said might lead a judge to decide a case other than on its legal and factual merits; and

(ii) there must be an articulation of the logical connection between the matter and the feared deviation from a course of deciding a case on its merits.

1. More must be shown than a mere predisposition of the decision-maker to a particular view. It is necessary to show that a decision-maker's mind is not open to persuasion[24]. The test "...is not merely a sense of unease or a feeling that conventions of discretion and prudence have been breached. Something more is required."[25]

GROUNDS OF REVIEW AND ASSERTED JURISDICTIONAL ERROR

1. The grounds of alleged error overlap and are directed at various findings made by the Authority. The findings which the applicant seeks to impugn and whether they affected by error are discussed below.

Applicant's involvement with any political group or organisation

1. The applicant claims that the Authority misunderstood his claims for protection and incorrectly took his answers to questioning about his political involvement at the arrival interview as being contrary to or inconsistent with the claims advanced in his submission to the Authority. This complaint seems to engage grounds 2 and 7 (failure to consider), 4 (illogicality or irrationality) and 6 (natural justice).
2. At the arrival interview on 31 October 2012, the applicant was asked a number of questions about why he left Sri Lanka, including two questions about his political involvement. First, he was asked whether he or any members of his family had been associated or involved with any political group or organisation. The record of the interview (CB 23) has a tick in the "no" box. Secondly, the applicant was asked whether he or any members of his family were involved in any activities or protests against the government. Again, the record of the interview has a tick in the "no" box.
3. These responses were referred to in the Authority's decision. At paragraph [19] of its reasons, the Authority recorded:

[19] The applicant participated in an "arrival entry" (arrival) interview on 31 October 2012. Asked why he left Sri Lanka, the applicant stated to protect himself, his life and secondly, his family. Asked whether he had ever been associated or involved with any political group or organisation, or involved in any activities or protests against the government, the applicant said 'no'...

1. The applicant submits that the Authority wrongly construed these answers as diminishing his profile as a person who may be of interest to the Sri Lankan government and authorities. The applicant contends that the Authority's failure to understand the proper context of his responses, and its failure to obtain more information about his involvement as a student organiser of the PT event, led to the flawed finding that he would not be regarded as an activist who would be of interest to the authorities because of that involvement.
2. The thrust of the applicant's complaint was that the arrival interview was a rushed and pressured affair which was conducted over no more than 30 to 40 minutes. He submitted to the Court, as he had to the delegate, that when he was asked questions about his political activities or participation, he understood that to be a question about whether he had directly engaged in the political process or activities against the government. He said he answered "no" to those questions because he perceived his involvement in organising the PT event as something of a very different character, being an act of unity gathering which demonstrated to the world what had been happening to Tamils - not direct political activity as such.
3. The applicant maintains, however, that his involvement as an organiser of the PT event was a matter of interest to paramilitary groups, the CID and others who could do him harm. His submission is that while the student union protest was not political or anti-government, his involvement attributed to him a profile which was and remained of interest to the authorities.
4. The applicant says that had he known that his answers to questions about his political involvement would be taken to weigh so heavily against his claims for protection, he would have tried to better explain his situation. However, the applicant says that he was not given a proper opportunity to explain his nuanced situation at the arrival interview, nor was he afforded an opportunity to properly do so in the visa interview. He submits that his answers to questions at the arrival interview must be considered in light of what he believed he was being asked.
5. The applicant conceded that pursuant to s 473DA of the Act, the Authority was not required to give him an opportunity to give further evidence or to further explain his claims. However, he submits that the Authority could and should have sought further information from him to clarify his claim for protection based on his involvement as a student organiser of the PT event and, had it done so, he would have provided a more detailed explanation which might have resulted in a different outcome on the review.
6. In response, the Minister submits that the applicant's criticism of the Authority's decision is misconceived and without merit. The Minister contends that the Authority well understood the applicant's nuanced arguments for protection and that the applicant was given every opportunity to address them.
7. The Minister submits that the "political" dimension of the applicant's involvement in the PT event was addressed in the delegate's decision record of 24 May 2017 (CB, 135) where it was stated:

The applicant claimed that he helped organise a Pongu Thamil rally at the University of Jaffna in 2003. At interview, the applicant provided generally consistent information to his written claims and was able to discuss this spontaneously at interview and provide additional details when questioned.

In considering this claim, I note that the applicant did not disclose this claim in his arrival interview and he also stated that he had no political involvement. This was put to the applicant and he stated that he was advised this was a short interview; he was only asked why he left Sri Lanka; and, told he would have a further interview later. At interview, the applicant repeatedly referred to the event as a rally of Tamil solidarity and did not consider this to be a political protest or political activity and further stated that it was organised by the Student Union rather than a political party. I have considered these responses and am willing to accept the applicant's explanation. As such, I do not consider the absence of this claim from the arrival interview to be detrimental to the applicant's credibility. (Emphasis added)

1. The Minister submits that the Authority also explicitly dealt with this issue at [19] and [20] of its reasons. At [19] the Authority again noted that the applicant participated in an arrival entry interview on 31 October 2021 and when asked whether he had ever been associated or involved with any political group or organisation, or involved in any activities or protests against the government the applicant responded 'no'. The Authority at [20] went on to note that the delegate raised this issue with the applicant at the SHEV interview. At [20] the Authority then found:
   • at the SHEV interview the delegate had pointed out to the applicant that he had said 'no' when asked about his involvement in political activities or participation in protests;
   • the applicant said that students had organised the PT event;
   • the applicant's understanding of 'political' was a political party event, there were different political parties in Sri Lanka and he did not participate;
   • the PT event was not a protest, it was to show unity and show the world was happening to Tamils and it was not against the government. Country information described the event as a 'festival', a 'celebration', a 'mass protest' and a 'broad social movement, similar to the intifada';
   • the event had the backing of the LTTE; and
   • there was evidence of representatives from student organisations reporting that some of the organisers had received threats in the residence had been harassed by Sri Lankan army personnel to dissuade them from participating.

1. I agree with the Minister's submission that there was no error in the Authority's consideration of the applicant's involvement in the PT event, including whether it had a political dimension. The entry interview and the responses given by the applicant at that interview were clearly before the delegate (CB, 135) and the delegate afforded the applicant an opportunity to expand on those responses. To the extent that the applicant alleges that the Authority was required to put the entry interview to him for further comment, this must be rejected. It was not new information and it was open to the Authority to consider the responses given by the applicant at the entry interview and in his interview with a delegate. The Authority was entitled to come to a conclusion on the material, even if that conclusion differed from the delegate's view.
2. There was no denial of procedural fairness, no failure to consider information and no jurisdictional error.

1. The applicant submits that the Authority should have taken into account his student ID as relevant and probative "new information".
2. In a submission prepared by his representative for the Authority, the applicant provided a scanned copy of his student registration booklet which included the applicant's name, date of birth, National identity card number and field of study. The applicant contends that it was not possible to submit a hard copy of his student ID information at the time of the delegate's interview. He did not have the relevant information at the time of the delegate interview, but sought it thereafter. He argues that the Authority failed to appreciate that it took time to obtain documents which were not readily available to him. The applicant submitted that there were exceptional circumstances for considering this new information.
3. The Minister points out that the Authority at [10] said it was not clear why this information could not have been submitted earlier and prior to the delegate's decision being made. The applicant had told the delegate that he had a photocopy of his student card with him and the Authority was unconvinced as to why he could not have provided this information with his application or at the SHEV interview. The Authority found that there were no exceptional reasons for considering the applicant's student ID information.

1. The information provided by the representative about the applicant's student identification was not new information. New information submitted by an applicant needs to satisfy both s 473DD(a) and one limb of s 473DD(b). The Authority was not satisfied that either limb of s 473DD(b) had been met and the applicant has not pointed to any error in that reasoning.
2. Critically, and in any event, while accepting that the student ID information was credible personal information, the Authority was not satisfied that it may have affected consideration of the applicant's claims. The Authority stated that there was no dispute about the applicant having been a student. It was not a contentious issue in the review and the student ID card could not have informed that conclusion any further. In all the circumstances the Authority was not satisfied that there were exceptional reasons for considering the information, a conclusion which was entirely unsurprising and plainly open to the Authority.
3. The decision by the Authority not to accept the applicant's student identification as new information is not affected by jurisdictional error. If I am wrong about that, the error was not material as the Authority properly concluded and assessed the applicant's claims on the basis that he was a student at the time the PT event was organised.

Photo evidence of involvement in the PT rally

1. At [21] the Authority accepted the applicant's claim that he had been a student participant in the PT rally in June 2003. However, the Authority rejected his claims of having been on the organising committee and of having his picture published in the media, noting that he had provided no evidence of this picture.
2. The applicant submits that the time of his visa interview, he could not have obtained a copy of that photo. Furthermore, the applicant submits that he has not been given a chance to provide further information since that interview. The applicant submits that in circumstances where a copy of his picture in the media could have changed the direction of his claims for protection, he should have been invited to attend an interview with the Authority or to provide this information or to further explain the nature and extent of his role and involvement in the PT rally.
3. In his oral submissions the applicant reiterated that the Authority failed to appreciate that he was one of the main persons involved in organising in the PT event. He said the event was closely watched by the CID and on other authorities of the Sri Lankan government. He said the event attracted over 100,000 people and that he and others organise 600 buses to transport people to the event. The applicant claims that his involvement was much more significant than he was given credit for in the Authority's reasons.
4. The applicant submits that the Authority could have more effectively engaged with this issue by convening and conducting a hearing and providing him with a further opportunity to explain the importance of his role and why that makes him a person of interest to authorities. I understand the applicant to be saying that the Authority acted unreasonably in not affording him that hearing or by not calling for the photo.
5. At paragraphs [10] and [11] of his written outline of submissions dated 20 March 2025, the Minister submitted:

[10] Particular (b) [of Ground 6] alleges that the Authority ought to have invited the applicant to provide evidence that his picture had been in the media. This refers to the Authority's finding at [21], where it accepted that the applicant had been a participant in the Pongu Thamil rally held at his university, but rejected his claims to have been on the organising committee and to have had his picture in the media, noting that he had provided no evidence of this picture and he had not been directly threatened by the authorities because of his involvement. In his written submissions, the applicant also asserts that he should have been invited to attend an interview with the Authority.

[11] It is well settled that the Authority has no general duty to get, request or accept any new information: BNB17 v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2020] FCA 304 at [54]. And the Authority was not obliged to explain a refusal to exercise its discretion under s 473DC in the applicant's favour: DYK16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) 267 FCR 69; [2018] FCAFC 222 at [65].

1. When developing these submissions orally, Ms Stone referred to the delegate's reasons (CB 136) which noted that the applicant had provided a written statement which claimed that he had been photographed and filmed at the PT event. The delegate questioned the applicant about this and he responded that the Sri Lankan authorities stationed outside the event were likely to have taken photographs of those who attended. The delegate also noted that the applicant had not provided any evidence that a photo or film of him had been published or was publicly available.
2. Based on the comments made by the delegate in their reasons, the Minister submits that the applicant was squarely put on notice about a gap in his evidence, i.e. his failure to provide any photo or film of him that was published or was made publicly available. Having been put on notice, the applicant had a clear opportunity to provide that information prior to consideration of his application by the Authority.
3. The Minister submits that the Authority was not required to ask for the information or to fill the holes in the applicant's evidence. The Minister submitted that the reasonableness of the Authority's conduct must be considered in the context of statutory scheme of Part 7AA of the Act and the limited statutory review task undertaken pursuant to the fast-track process.

1. I find the Minister's submissions compelling. The applicant's claim that he was denied procedural fairness and not afforded a proper opportunity to provide information supporting his involvement in the PT event, lacks substance.
2. The delegate noted that the applicant had not provided the photographic evidence which he claimed would support his claim of having been surveilled at the rally. I agree with the Minister submission that a gap in the applicant's evidence was identified. Prior to the Authority's consideration of the protection visa application, the applicant was afforded an opportunity to provide further information and submissions. If he was able to supply a copy of the photo, he had the opportunity to do so.
3. There was no requirement for the Authority to convene a hearing or to make an explicit request for any photo of him which had appeared in the media. The Authority was not required to make the applicant's case for him. The applicant has failed to identify jurisdictional error.

New claim about the deaths of students following the September 2016 Eluga Thamil demonstration

1. In his submission to the Authority dated 30 June 2017, the applicant raised a new claim about two university students having been shot by police in 2016 approximately one month after an event called Eluga Thamil. The applicant sought to rely upon this claim and a hyperlink to a supporting Wikipedia article to corroborate his fears that as a student participant in a similar rally, he would be at risk of harm from Sri Lankan authorities if he returned to the country.
2. The Authority's findings regarding the new claim and the Wikipedia article are set out at [5] of the Authority's reasons:

[5] Within the submission the applicant has provided information that was not before the delegate. Firstly, the applicant makes reference to an event called the Eluga Thamil demonstration in Jaffna which occurred in September 2016 and the subsequent death of two university students shot dead by police on 20 October 2016. He has also provided a Wikipedia article about this shooting. Whilst the applicant at his protection visa (PV) interview on 12 December 2016 made reference in time to two people being killed at Jaffna university two months prior, their names, the dates and the attached article was not in the referred material and is new information. Given the applicant initially raised the incident at his PV interview I consider he was on notice and had the opportunity to provide this information prior to the delegate's decision being made. No explanation has been provided as to why this information could not have been provided prior to the delegate's decision being made and no reasons have been given as to why it may be considered credible personal information. The applicant has not satisfied me that the requirements of s.473DD(b)(i) or s. 473DD(b)(ii) are met in relation to this country information. Furthermore, it is not apparent that there are any exceptional circumstances to justify considering this information.

1. The precise nature of the applicant's complaint about the treatment of this information is not entirely clear. It seems to be that the information was viewed as "new information" and therefore not properly considered by the Authority.
2. In response to this, the Minister says the Authority was correct to find that the submission prepared by the applicant's representative contains new information. While the applicant had previously mentioned the shooting of two students during the course of the SHEV interview with the delegate, the applicant had not previously associated those deaths with the Eluga Thamil event, nor had the dates of that demonstration been disclosed nor had the Wikipedia article been relied upon.
3. Further, the Minister submits that the Authority clearly turned its mind to this new information and gave proper consideration to whether it should be taken into account. The Minister submits that the Authority self-evidently considered whether the information satisfied the limbs of s 473DD(b) and whether exceptional circumstances existed pursuant to s 473DD(a). It is submitted that the Authority adopted an orthodox and legally correct approach to the consideration of this issue and that the applicant has not pointed to any error in the Authority's reasoning.

1. Paragraph [5] of the Authority's reasons is a complete answer to the applicant's complaint. The Authority noted that the claim about two students having been killed at Jaffna university had been raised by the applicant during the interview with the delegate. However, the applicant did not at that time provide further corroborating information, including that students had been involved with the Eluga Thamil event.
2. The Authority was required to consider whether the corroborating information should be taken into account as new information for the purposes of assessing the applicant's claim for protection. It did engage with that task. The Authority considered, among other things, whether the corroborating information could have been provided to the delegate and whether it was credible personal information. The Authority concluded that the applicant had failed to provide any explanation as to why the information could not have been provided earlier and why it should be regarded as credible personal information. The decision not to accept the new information was soundly based in s 473DD and does not disclose any jurisdictional error.

Applicant claims to have never mentioned suspected involvement with LTTE

1. At [30] the Authority notes that in his arrival interview the applicant stated that he had been arrested and beaten by masked men on suspicion of being a member of a paramilitary group or the LTTE, before a ransom was demanded for his release. The applicant submits that this is an incorrect finding not supported by evidence. He says he never mentioned the LTTE in his arrival interview.
2. The Minister's representative drew the applicant's attention to the statement filed in support of his visa application on 3 February 2016[26]. At [22]-[23] of that statement the applicant said in relation to his abduction:
   1. On the first day they beat me with a wooden stick on the shin and body. During this time they accused me of supporting the LTTE and helping set up the LTTE's political wing.
   2. They asked me questions about whether I was involved with the LTTE. They knew I was in Jaffna at the time of the ceasefire and knew what I had done during that time.
3. In his reply submission, the applicant agreed that he had been accused of being an LTTE member, but he never claimed any involvement with the organisation itself.
4. Confusingly, Ground 3 alleges that the Authority failed to consider that the applicant is a person of interest in Sri Lanka because of his support of the LTTE and his association with the Pongu Thamil who were supportive of the LTTE. This seems at odds with his own evidence even during the SHEV interview that he had no links to the LTTE and had not participated in any political organisations. The Minister submits that the Authority cannot therefore have fallen into error by failing to consider the claim.

1. The applicant himself claimed that he had been the subject of threats which alleged that he was involved with the LTTE. Those threats were made by the men who abducted, detained and beat him before making financial demands.
2. The observations made by the Authority at [30] of its reasons relate to the abduction incident. The applicant claimed that his abductors were associated with the authorities (even though he did not know who they were) and he believed that they suspected him of involvement with paramilitary groups or the LTTE. The Authority's finding that the applicant had been arrested and beaten on suspicion of being a member of a paramilitary group or the LTTE are consistent with the applicant's own evidence and does not reveal any jurisdictional error.

1. In his arrival interview the applicant stated that he was arrested by people who he believed were from the intelligence agencies because they came in "ordinary clothes". In his later visa interview the applicant alleges that he had been arrested by masked men before being taken away and beaten. He made no mention in the earlier (arrival) interview that his captors had been masked.
2. At [32] the Authority expressed its concern about the applicant's failure to mention masks at the arrival interview, which it thought would have been a matter of some significance for the applicant given that they were otherwise described having been in ordinary clothes. This inconsistency weighed against the credibility of the applicant's claims.
3. The applicant contends that in order to properly engage with his claims for protection, the Authority could and should have explored this inconsistency with him and afforded him an opportunity to provide an explanation. He submits that he was denied that opportunity. He submits that the Authority failed to take into account that his initial description of the abduction was given in a brief high-pressure arrival interview, where the Australian officers conducting the interview told him that he should focus on main points and provide detail later. The applicant submits that when the delegate asked him about inconsistencies between his accounts of the event, he gave a reasonable explanation, namely that he was providing detail of an incident which he had only described generally beforehand.
4. The Minister submits that it was reasonable, logical and rational for the Authority to have regard to an inconsistency in the applicant's evidence and to give it weight in its consideration of his claims. The Minister submits that in the context of a Part 7AA review, the Authority was not required to conduct a hearing to explore the inconsistencies nor was it required to request further information from the applicant.

1. The evidence before the Authority regarding the abduction and beating had been provided by the applicant at the arrival interview and in his interview with the delegate. At [32] of its reasons, the Authority explained why it had concerns about the applicant's evidence regarding the abduction event. Inconsistencies in the applicant's evidence regarding the wearing of masks was but one such concern.
2. As I have repeatedly stated, the procedural fairness requirements of Part 7AA contemplate a review on the papers. The inconsistency in the applicant's evidence was apparent to the Authority, relevant to his credit and properly taken into account.
3. In any event, the issue of "masks" ultimately came to nothing in the Authority's overall assessment of the applicant's protection claims. The Authority accepted that the applicant had presented his evidence about the abduction in a generally consistent fashion. Despite inconsistencies in the evidence and concerns on the part of the Authority, the Authority accepted that the applicant had been abducted and detained. It also accepted that the applicant had been beaten and a ransom extracted from him.
4. The applicant has not identified any jurisdictional error in relation to the Authority's consideration of the claimed abduction. If, contrary to that finding, there was jurisdictional error, in my view it was immaterial given the broader acceptance of the applicant's evidence about that event.

1. At [31] of its reasons, the Authority found that the applicant's family had not received any threats since he had been abducted and beaten in May 2012 prior to departing for Australia.
2. The applicant agrees that at the time of the arrival interview in 2012, there had not to his knowledge been any direct threats made against his family. For that reason, when this topic was explored by the delegate, the applicant answered no.
3. In the submission to the Authority prepared by the applicant's representative, it is stated that the applicant's family had been subjected to threats. The applicant complains that this information was not taken into account. He submits that the information in the submission should reasonably have been a trigger for the Authority to make further enquiries and for him to be given an opportunity to explain that his family had been watched and monitored, albeit not directly threatened.
4. Again, the Minister's response is that the Authority was under no general duty to get, request or accept new information or to make further enquiries.

1. Insofar as it is alleged that the claims about more recent threats are new information and that the Authority failed to properly consider that information, the applicant has failed to demonstrate jurisdictional error.
2. The Authority was alive to the fact that the submissions received from the applicant's representative on 30 June 2017 included a new claim that the applicant's family had received threatening telephone calls (even though the submissions did not identify the claim as new). However, pursuant to the scheme of Part 7AA, the Authority was only entitled to take new information into account if s 473DD was satisfied. The Authority turned its mind to this issue and found at [11] that the new information did not satisfy s 473DD.
3. For these reasons, any assertion that the claim of threatening phone calls to the family was not properly taken into account or that the applicant had been denied procedural fairness, lacks substance.

1. At [32] the Authority found that the abduction of the applicant and ransom demand was opportunistic and a known risk at the time. The Authority did not accept that the applicant's arrest/abduction and beating was motivated by any knowledge of his involvement with the PT or because Sri Lankan authorities perceived him as having any connection to the LTTE.
2. The Authority noted that over many years the applicant had been able to apply for a passport and travel into and out of Sri Lanka without being arrested or questioned by the authorities in relation to his participation in the PT.
3. By ground 8, the applicant seems to take issue with the Authority's conclusion and findings at [43] and [52] where it assessed the applicant was not at an elevated risk of harm if returned to his home country. The applicant submits that the Authority's findings are based on a misunderstanding.
4. The applicant submitted that obtaining a passport and engaging in ordinary legal travel to and from Sri Lanka is only an issue for those who have criminal record, which he does not have. However, the applicant submitted that it is an altogether different situation for a returning illegal departee who is suspected of anti-government links. The applicant argues that previous legal travel on a valid passport is irrelevant and not indicative of the risk likely to be faced by the applicant as a failed asylum seeker.

1. The Authority was not satisfied that the applicant had a profile which would draw him to the attention of authorities on return. The PT event occurred many years ago and his involvement was not that of an organiser. Further, the Authority found that applicant was unlikely to be perceived to have engaged in any political activity or to have links which would be of concern to the authorities. If the applicant returned to Sri Lanka he would be in the same position as many many thousands of others who had done so.
2. The Authority accepted that the applicant had left Sri Lanka illegally by boat, that he would be regarded as a returning asylum seeker and that he would likely be charged with an offence under the Sri Lankan Immigrants and Emigrants Act 1949. Moreover, the Authority considered country information which informed the conclusion that the applicant would be arrested at the airport and likely remain in custody for a short period before being transferred to appear before a magistrate. The Authority also considered the most likely course of events would see the applicant bailed on the basis of a personal surety or family member guarantee, and that he would receive a fine, not a custodial sentence.
3. The Authority also turned its mind to the circumstances in which the applicant might be held in custody, including considering prison conditions. The Authority found that even if the applicant were required to spend a longer than anticipated period in detention, that detention would not meet the definition of significant harm.
4. I accept the Minister's submission that the Authority carefully and comprehensively engaged with the applicant's claim to fear harm as a returning illegal departee. The Authority demonstrated engagement with the claim and its conclusions were neither irrational or illogical. The Authority's findings in relation to this issue do not reveal jurisdictional error.

1. At [36] of its reasons the Authority notes the Sri Lankan constitution which provides that no citizen should be discriminated against on the grounds of their race, religion or language.
2. At [37] the Authority referred to the assessment by DFAT that Sri Lankans of all backgrounds generally have a low risk of experiencing official discrimination as there are currently no official laws or policies that discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, including in relation to access to education, employment or access to housing. The Authority goes on to note that since the end of the Civil War, Tamils have assumed a substantial level of political influence and are involved in political dialogue.
3. The applicant submits that DFAT and the Authority misunderstand the situation. He says that the impression of relative safety for Tamils and representative democracy for Tamils is not truly reflective of the situation on the ground. The applicant submits that Tamil representatives in Parliament generally support the government. However, Tamils who oppose the government, including those within Parliament, continued to be targeted. The applicant submits that Tamils continue to face persecution and his genuine fears for his life are demonstrated by his decision to flee the country, notwithstanding being a father to a 6-month-old child.

1. Again, the Minister submits that the applicant has failed to identify any error in the Authority's consideration of this issue. Rather, the applicant's complaint seems to be with the Authority's conclusion. I agree.
2. Different conclusions might be reached by different decision-makers on the same evidence, but that is not evidence of error. For jurisdictional error to be established, true irrationality must be shown or "extreme" illogicality must be demonstrated. It must be shown that the findings were not rationally open to be made[27].
3. The conclusions reached by the Authority on the evidence before it were clearly open. The assessment of risk was carefully considered, informed by country information and was soundly based. The applicant has not demonstrated error.

1. It is uncontroversial that on judicial review the applicant assumes the burden of persuading the Court to draw the inference of a failure to deal with a claim or consider a matter the Tribunal was obliged to consider, or to make the finding of jurisdictional error for which he or she contends.
2. The question of whether the Authority has discharged its statutory task is to be answered primarily through the lens of the Authority's reasons. In Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v MZYTS (2013) 230 FCR 431 at [49] the Court said:

The court is entitled to take the reasons of the Tribunal as setting out the findings of fact the Tribunal itself considered material to its decision, and as reciting the evidence and other material which the Tribunal itself considered relevant to the findings it made. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 206 CLR 323 (Yusuf) at [10], [34], [68]. Representing as it does what the Tribunal itself considered important and material, what is present -and what is absent -from the reasons may in a given case enable a Court on review to find jurisdictional error: see Yusuf 206 CLR 323 at [10], [44], [69].

1. The reasons of the Authority must be read fairly and as a whole and not "with an eye keenly attuned to the perception of error"[28].
2. An assessment of the Authority's decision and reasoning process, in accordance with the statutory framework and legal principles articulated earlier, fails to reveal any jurisdictional error on the part of the decision-maker. None of the species of jurisdictional error claimed in the amended application has been made out.
3. For completeness, I should add that there is no basis whatsoever to the applicant's allegation of bias. The ground was advanced without any particulars and the court's attention was not drawn to any evidence or argument on which such a finding could be reached.
4. The reasons set out above, the application for judicial review must be dismissed
5. I will hear the parties on the question of costs.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and thirty-two (132) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Forbes.

[13] Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24 per Mason J, at [19]

[14] SZSZW v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 562

[15] Carrascalao v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 107; (2017) 252 FCR 352 at [45]-[48]; BVD17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2019) 268 CLR 29; [2019] HCA 34 at [38]; Ba v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 1239 at [48].

[16] See_, Guclukol v Minister for Home Affairs_ [2020] FCAFC 148; (2020) 279 FCR 611 (Guclukol) at [41]-[53] and [55] (Katzmann, O'Callaghan and Derrington JJ).

[17] Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v EEI17 [2018] FCAFC 166; (2018) 261 FCR 461, at [49].

[18] SZDXZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCAFC 109 at [27] (Heerey, Branson and Emmett JJ); Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZGUR [2011] HCA 1; (2011) 241 CLR 594 at [73] (Gummow J, with whom Heydon and Crennan JJ agreed at [91] and [92]).

[19] CQG15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 253 FCR 496; [2016] FCAFC 146 at [40]- [55].

[20] Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611; [2010] HCA 16 at [132] (Crennan and Bell JJ) (SZMDS); see also, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZRKT (2013) 212 FCR 99; [2013] FCA 317 (SZRKT) at [150]-[156] (Robertson J); ARG15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 250 FCR 109; [2016] FCAFC 174 (ARG15) at [47] (Griffiths, Perry and Bromwich JJ); Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Sabharwal [2018] FCAFC 160 at [45] (Perram, Murphy and Lee JJ); MZZGE v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 72 at [22] (Besanko, Farrell and Thawley JJ); CGA15 v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 268 FCR 362; [2019] FCAFC 46 at [58]- [61] (Murphy, Mortimer and O'Callaghan JJ).

[21] SZRKT at [148]; CQG15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 253 FCR 496; [2016] FCAFC 146 (CQG15) at [60].

[22] ALA15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 30 at [35] (Allsop CJ, Kenny and Griffiths JJ) citing R v Watson; Ex parte Armstrong [1976] HCA 39; Livesey v New South Wales Bar Association [1983] HCA 17; (1983) 151 CLR 288; Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63; (2000) 205 CLR 337; Concrete Pty Limited v Parramatta Design and Developments Pty Ltd [2006] HCA 55; British American Tobacco Australia Services Limited v Laurie [2011] HCA 2; Chen v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 41

[23] CNY17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] HCA 50; (2019) 268 CLR 76 at [22]; Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v AMA16 [2017] FCAFC 136 at [65]

[24] Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng (2001) 205 CLR 507 at [69] and [71]-[72] (Gleeson CJ and Gummow J).

[25] Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Epeabaka [2001] HCA 23 at [90] per Kirby J

[27] Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Applicant S20/2002 (2003) 73 ALD 1; [2003] HCA 30 at [9] per Gleeson CJ and at[34]-[37] per McHugh and Gummow JJ; Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v SGLB (2004) 78 ALD 224; [2004] HCA 32 at[35]-[38] per Gummow and Hayne JJ; SZMDS at [119]and [135] per Crennan and Bell JJ.

[28] Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 272 (Brennan CJ, Toohey, McHugh and Gummow JJ)