AZN24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FedCFamC2G 443

Recent amendments to the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

1. The Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the "Act") was amended on 14 October 2024 following the commencement of the Administrative Review Tribunal (the "ART") (and by virtue of the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth) (the "Transitional Act")).
2. This judgment relates to a decision of the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the "Tribunal"). That decision is dated 30 January 2024 and thus predates those amendments. Unless otherwise stated, any reference to the Act in this judgment is a reference to the Act as was in force as at the date of the Tribunal's decision (or as at the date of any relevant matter referenced in this judgment).
3. At the time that the application for judicial review was filed (being on 5 March 2024), the Tribunal was listed as the second respondent in this matter. Item 10 in Schedule 16 of the Transitional Act provides that the ART is (after the transition time) substituted for the Tribunal as a party to any proceeding pending in any Court or Tribunal immediately before the transition time. Item 25 of the Transitional Act relates to any proceeding in a Court that is not finalised before the transition time and that relates to a decision made, or other thing done, by the Tribunal. After the transition time, a proceeding will continue in accordance with the new law. By continuing with a proceeding, anything the Court could have done in relation to the Tribunal before the transition time can now be done in relation to the ART.
4. In the circumstances, this Court made an order (at the hearing of this matter on 5 March 2026) substituting the ART as the second respondent in this proceeding.

1. The applicant is a citizen of Malaysia (Court Book ("CB") 12 & 32). He arrived in Australia in September 2017 as the holder of an Electronic Travel Authority (Class UD) (Subclass 601) visa (CB 49 & 66).
2. On 12 December 2017, the applicant applied for a Protection (Class XA) (Subclass 866) visa (the "visa") (CB 1-31 & 49). In that visa application, the applicant claimed that he was "seeking protection in Australia so that [he did] not have to return to Malaysia" because the Malaysian economy was "not stable" and it "ma[d]e it hard" for him to live as he had "so many commitment[s] to pay" for. The applicant acknowledged that he was new to Australia but "wanted to make a new and more stable life here" (CB 27-28). The visa application was accompanied by a copy of the applicant's Malaysian passport (CB 32).
3. On 8 January 2018, the Department acknowledged receipt of the applicant's valid visa application (by email) and asked him to attend an appointment at the Department's Melbourne office on 15 January 2018 "to provide [his] personal identifiers" (CB 33-44).
4. On 18 January 2018, a delegate of the first respondent (the "Minister") refused to grant the applicant the visa (CB 49-56). The delegate found that the economic climate in Malaysia affected everyone and that any economic hardship that the applicant may suffer on his return did not amount to significant harm (CB 51).
5. On 25 January 2018, the applicant sought review of the delegate's decision by the Tribunal (CB 57-58). In that application, the applicant provided a residential address in Victoria and an email address for the Tribunal to contact him (the "applicant's nominated email address") (CB 58).
6. On 30 January 2018, the Tribunal acknowledged receipt of the applicant's review application (by email sent to the applicant's nominated email address) (CB 59-60).
7. On 4 October 2023, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant (by email sent to the applicant's nominated email address) and asked that he complete a pre-hearing information form (the "questionnaire") and return it within seven days. The Tribunal also provided the applicant with a link that gave him access to the questionnaire (CB 61).
8. There is no evidence before the Court to indicate that the applicant returned the questionnaire to the Tribunal (within the seven-day time period or at all).
9. On 20 October 2023, the Tribunal invited the applicant (by email sent to the applicant's nominated email address) to attend a hearing before it, scheduled to take place on 15 November 2023 at the Tribunal's Melbourne Registry (CB 62-65). That invitation letter also invited the applicant to provide any further documents to the Tribunal, as follows (CB 64):

Things to do before the hearing

Please provide all documents you intend to rely on to support your case by 8 November 2023. The decision made by the department should set out the reasons for the decision, and you should have regard to these, and any changes in your circumstances, in providing documents and preparing for the hearing. Any documents or written arguments sent to us should be in English and if not then accompanied by a translation from a qualified translator.

1. On 26 October 2023, the applicant returned a completed "Response to hearing invitation" form to the Tribunal (CB 67-71). In that form, the applicant indicated that he would participate in the Tribunal hearing (CB 68).
2. On 3 November 2023, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant (by email sent to the applicant's nominated email address) referencing a telephone conversation with the applicant earlier that day during which the applicant had advised that he had a new address. The Tribunal asked the applicant to complete a "Change of Contact Details" form and return it as soon as possible (CB 72).
3. On 8 November 2023, the applicant provided the Tribunal with a completed "Change of Contact Details" form in which he included an address in Queensland (CB 73-75).
4. On 13 November 2023, the applicant again wrote to the Tribunal (by email) confirming that he was living in Queensland and requesting that his hearing (scheduled to take place on 15 November 2023) be conducted by video (CB 76).
5. Later that same day (being on 13 November 2023), the Tribunal wrote to the applicant (by email sent to the applicant's nominated email address) advising that, "[d]ue to circumstances beyond [their] control, the Tribunal [was] unable to conduct the hearing" on that day and the hearing had been postponed (CB 77-78).
6. On 1 December 2023, the Tribunal invited the applicant (by email sent to the applicant's nominated email address) to attend a hearing before it, scheduled to take place on 30 January 2024 at the Tribunal's Brisbane Registry (CB 79-83). The applicant was again invited to provide any documents he intended to rely upon to the Tribunal by 23 January 2024 (CB 81).
7. On 22 January 2024, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant (via email sent to the applicant's nominated email address) asking him to complete and return a "Response to hearing invitation form". The Tribunal's correspondence also noted that the hearing would take place "in-person" in Brisbane but explained that, if the applicant was unable to appear in person, he could appear by video conference (CB 84-85). The applicant was also provided with a copy of the Tribunal's Migration and Refugee Practice Direction (CB 86-99).
8. Later that same day (being on 22 January 2024), the applicant responded to the Tribunal's email stating that he would "be attending" the Tribunal hearing (CB 101-102).
9. On 30 January 2024, the applicant attended the Tribunal hearing to give evidence and present arguments in support of his review application (in person) (CB 105-107). He was assisted at that hearing by an interpreter in the Malay and English languages (CB 105).
10. On 30 January 2024, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision refusing to grant the applicant the visa (CB 110-126).
11. On 5 March 2024, the applicant applied to this Court for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision. The applicant also provided an affidavit in support of that application (affirmed by him on 4 March 2024). That affidavit annexed a copy of the Tribunal's decision.

1. The applicant's application for judicial review was brought pursuant to s 476 of the Act. To obtain assistance from this Court, the applicant must show that the Tribunal has fallen into jurisdictional error. It is thus helpful to set out the Tribunal's decision in some detail.
2. The Tribunal's decision is 17 pages long and spans 79 paragraphs (CB 110-126). The final four pages contain extracts of relevant legislative provisions (CB 123-126).
3. The Tribunal began by explaining that the applicant, who claimed to be a citizen of Malaysia, had applied for the visa on 12 December 2017 and was refused that visa by a delegate of the Minister on 18 January 2018. The Tribunal confirmed that the applicant had sought review of the delegate's decision and appeared at a hearing before the Tribunal (without representation but with the assistance of a Malay interpreter) on 30 January 2024 (at [1]-[6]).
4. The Tribunal then outlined the legislative criteria for the grant of a protection visa, summarising the requirements of the refugee criterion outlined in s 36(2)(a) of the Act, the relevant definitional provisions detailed in ss 5H(1)(a)-(b), 5J(1)-(6) and 5K-LA of the Act and the complementary protection criterion set out in s 36(2)(aa) of the Act. The Tribunal also noted that, in assessing the applicant's protection claims and in accordance with Ministerial Direction No. 84 (made under s 499 of the Act), the Tribunal had had regard to the 'Refugee Law Guidelines' and 'Complementary Protection Guidelines' prepared by the Department and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade ("DFAT") for protection status determination purposes (at [7]-[14]).
5. The Tribunal then set out the material before it, including Departmental records, the applicant's visa application, the applicant's Tribunal review application (with annexed copy of the delegate's decision) and the applicant's movement records (at [16]).
6. The Tribunal detailed the applicant's protection claims set out in his visa application, as follows (at [17]):
   • That [the applicant] is seeking protection in Australia so that he does not have to return to Malaysia, as the Malaysian economy is unstable; and
   • That the instability of the Malaysian economy makes it difficult for [the applicant] to live there and meet his financial commitments.
7. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant had raised a new claim at the Tribunal hearing, as follows (at [18]):
   • [The applicant] feared harm in Malaysia because his father had borrowed around 20,000 Malaysian Ringgit (which he agreed was the equivalent of about AUD $7,000.00) from an illegal and unlicensed money lender.
8. The Tribunal outlined the procedural background of the matter (both in relation to the delegate's decision and in relation to the Tribunal application) (at [19]-[28]).
9. The Tribunal then detailed country information contained in the DFAT Country Information Report Malaysia dated 29 June 2021 and outlined its discussions with the applicant (at the hearing before it) in relation to his protection claims. The Tribunal also summarised the role of the Tribunal, the task before it and what assessments it would need to make (including by reference to relevant case law) and acknowledged that the applicant had been "forthright and honest with the Tribunal" in relation to his reasons for travelling to and seeking to remain in Australia (at [29]-[54]).
10. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant had travelled to Australia to seek employment that would provide him with a better income than was available to him in Malaysia. The Tribunal noted that the applicant conceded that he could support himself in Malaysia but gave evidence that he could earn a "far better income" in Australia (which allowed him to have a better life while providing financial assistance to his family in Malaysia). The Tribunal found that the applicant did not apply for protection because of any real fears or harm arising from any of the reasons outlined in s 5J of the Act and further found that the applicant's fears as to the economic situation in Malaysia were not well-founded (at [54]-[59]).
11. The Tribunal also detailed the applicant's new claim which had not been previously raised before the delegate (relating to money his father had borrowed from an illegal money lender). The Tribunal rejected the applicant's explanation as to why he had failed to raise that claim earlier and did not accept that it was plausible that if the applicant really held such a fear, he would not have raised the claim earlier. However, the Tribunal (for completeness) considered the claim in any event and noted that the applicant gave evidence that his father, his family or the applicant could make a complaint with the Royal Malaysian Police but the applicant did not know why his father had not already done so. The Tribunal was of the view that the debt had either been repaid or that there had been no threats of harm associated with the loan and found that the applicant's fears of harm relating to his father's debts were not well founded (at [60]-[69]).
12. The Tribunal considered the delay in the applicant making his visa application, noting that he had arrived in Australia in September 2017 and, despite his claimed fears of harm, did not make his visa application for three months. The Tribunal found that the delay was inconsistent with the applicant's claimed fear of harm and that, if the applicant genuinely feared persecution, he would not have delayed in applying for the visa (at [70]-[71]).
13. Overall, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant was a refugee within the meaning of the Act and, for the same reasons, found that the applicant was not eligible for complementary protection (at [72]-[76]).
14. The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision refusing to grant the applicant the visa (at [79]).

1. The application for judicial review (filed by the applicant on 5 March 2024) contains four "grounds of review", as follows (without alteration):
   1. THE TRIBUNAL FILED TO CONSIDER MANY VITAL INTEGER OF MY CASE.

2. THE TRIBUNAL DEPRIVED ME OF PROCEDURE FAIRNESS.

1. THE TRIBUNAL MEMBER FAILED RELIED ON INCORRECT INFORMATION AND DECIDE MY CASE USING FACTS FROM OTHER CASE.

THE TRIBUNAL MEMBER FAILED TO ASK ME QUESTION ABOUT THE TYPES OF HARM RELAVANT IN MY CASE.

1. The applicant also filed an affidavit in support of that judicial review application (affirmed by him on 4 March 2024 and filed on 5 March 2024). That affidavit annexed a copy of the Tribunal's decision.
2. On 18 December 2025, procedural orders were made by another Judge of this Court giving the applicant an opportunity to file an amended application, written submissions and any additional evidence. Unfortunately, no additional materials were filed by or on behalf of the applicant.
3. The applicant appeared before this Court on 5 March 2026 (by telephone). He did so without legal representation. He was assisted at that hearing by an interpreter in the Malay language. The Court confirmed with the applicant that he had received copies of the CB and the Minister's written submissions. Ms Olivia Hibberd ("Ms Hibberd") from HWLE Lawyers (the "Minister's solicitor") appeared at the hearing on behalf of the Minister (also by telephone).

1. On 27 and 28 February 2026, the applicant sent multiple emails to the Minister's solicitor seeking an adjournment of the hearing (scheduled to take place on 5 March 2026) and attaching various documents.
2. On 2 March 2026, Ms Hibberd forwarded copies of the applicant's email correspondence (outlined above) to the Court and advised that the Minister opposed the applicant's adjournment request.
3. On 5 March 2026, the Court notified the parties that, in circumstances where the Minister did not consent to the adjournment, the "request for an administrative adjournment ha[d] not been granted". The parties were further advised that, if the adjournment was still pressed, the applicant could "file an application in a proceeding or otherwise raise the application with the Court at the hearing" of the matter.
4. At the start of the hearing of this matter (on 5 March 2026), the Court asked the applicant if he still pressed the adjournment request. He confirmed that he did.
5. The correspondence above (from the applicant, the Minister and the Court, with attachments) was tendered (together) at the hearing and referenced as Exhibit 1. The Court also made an order taking those documents as an adjournment request and dispensing with the requirement for the applicant to file any supporting affidavit in that regard.
6. The Court asked the applicant to explain why he thought the Court should delay the hearing. In response, the applicant stated that the main reason was his economic situation. The applicant noted that he was only working casually and that there was a lot of competition for the type of work he does. The applicant told the Court that he did not have a lawyer, could not afford one and had to try to learn for himself what was required and he was "not very good at it" and what he had found "online [was] limited".
7. The Court is sympathetic to the concerns raised by the applicant at the hearing.
8. However, the Court notes that there is generally no right to legal representation in migration proceedings: ADF15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1099. Nor was there any evidence before the Court in this case to suggest that the applicant had ever attempted to obtain legal assistance or that he had sought legal advice in the two years since filing his judicial review application. There was also no evidence to suggest that if an adjournment was granted, the applicant could or would have obtained any legal assistance in a timely manner (or at all).
9. In those circumstances, the Court made a further order (at the hearing of this matter) refusing to grant the applicant's adjournment request.

1. As outlined above, the Court refused the applicant's adjournment request at the hearing on 5 March 2026. The Court then proceeded to hear the substantive judicial review application in this matter.
2. The materials before the Court in relation to the substantive application include the judicial review application and supporting affidavit filed by the applicant on 5 March 2024 (the affidavit being taken as read and in evidence at the hearing of this matter), a CB numbering 127 pages (marked as Exhibit 2 at the hearing of this matter) and written submissions filed on behalf of the Minister on 3 February 2026.
3. Noting that the applicant was not represented (and noting the remarks of the Federal Court of Australia in DQQ17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 784 at [8] and BKT17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 384 that it is usually appropriate for an unrepresented applicant to be given an opportunity to explain the matters that are said to give rise to an appeal (or review)), the Court gave the applicant an opportunity to outline (orally) what he thought the Tribunal "did wrong" in relation to his matter.
4. The Court explained that this Court can only turn its attention to the issue of jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decision. The Court also explained that the possible categories of jurisdictional error are not exhaustive and sometimes overlap. For migration decisions of this sort, however, they most commonly include (but are not limited to) the following categories:

(a) where the decision-maker identifies the wrong issue or asks the wrong question: Craig v State of South Australia [1995] HCA 58; (1995) 184 CLR 163 ("Craig") at 198;

(b) where the decision-maker ignores relevant material: Craig at 198;

(c) where the decision-maker relies on irrelevant material: Craig at 198;

(d) where the decision-maker fails to follow mandatory procedures: SAAP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs & Anor [2005] HCA 24 at [207]- [208];

(e) where the decision-maker fails to consider the entirety of an applicant's claims (or integers of the claims) made: Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v SZKRT [2013] FCA 317 at [111];

(f) where the decision-maker shows actual or apprehended bias_: SZRUI v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs & Citizenship_ [2013] FCAFC 80 ("SZRUI") at [2]; and

(g) where the decision is illogical, irrational or unreasonable: Djokovic v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 3 at [33]; Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v SZMDS [2010] HCA 16 at [131]; Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332 at [26]-[28]; Minister for Immigration & Border Protection v Singh [2014] FCAFC 1 at [44].

1. The Court also explained that it cannot undertake a merits review of the Tribunal's decision: Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 ("Wu Shan Liang"). Importantly, the Court cannot grant the applicant the visa that he seeks, even if the Court disagrees with the Tribunal's ultimate findings. Instead, the Court can only undertake an analysis of whether the Tribunal engaged in jurisdictional error of the sort outlined above.
2. Against this background, the applicant initially told the Court that, "in terms of jurisdiction or law", the Tribunal had not made any mistake. Later in the hearing, after hearing the Minister's oral submissions (outlined by Ms Hibberd), the applicant also told the Court that his Tribunal hearing was in Brisbane but he was working in Darwin at that time and he did not "have any time to prepare any documents or evidence for the hearing".
3. The applicant's oral submissions, to the extent that they point to any issue of jurisdictional error, will be addressed by the Court below.

Contact from the applicant following the hearing

1. The Court notes that on 20 March 2026, the parties were notified that judgment would be handed down in this matter on 24 March 2026. Following notification of that judgment delivery, the applicant contacted the Court (by email) and asked that "the decision" be "made later". The Court considers the applicant's email to be a request that the Court allow the applicant additional time to respond and file further materials in support of his application.
2. The Court declined to delay judgment delivery in this matter. Whilst the Court is sympathetic to the concerns of unrepresented applicants and does what it can to assist, the Court notes that the applicant filed his application for judicial review in this Court on 5 March 2024 (that is, more than two years ago). The parties were then notified in December 2025 that the matter would be listed for hearing in early 2026 and orders were made at that time giving the parties an opportunity to file additional materials. The applicant did not avail himself of this opportunity.
3. The Court is satisfied that the applicant has had ample opportunity to file materials and prepare for the hearing in this matter and does not consider it appropriate to delay the matter any further.

1. As outlined above, grounds one and three relevantly provide:
   1. THE TRIBUNAL FILED TO CONSIDER MANY VITAL INTEGER OF MY CASE.

...

1. THE TRIBUNAL MEMBER FAILED RELIED ON INCORRECT INFORMATION AND DECIDE MY CASE USING FACTS FROM OTHER CASE.

1. By grounds one and three, the applicant claims that the Tribunal erred in its assessment of the evidence before it.
2. In particular, the applicant contends that the Tribunal:

(a) failed to consider "vital integers" of his claims; and

(b) relied on incorrect information or determined his case based on facts from other cases.

1. The Minister submits that the Tribunal did not fail to properly consider the evidence before it and that the applicant (by these grounds) simply invites the Court to engage in impermissible merits review by coming to a different conclusion about the applicant's circumstances (citing Wu Shan Liang).
2. The Court agrees with the Minister in this regard.
3. The applicant in this matter raised two (related) protection claims in his visa application regarding the economic circumstances in Malaysia. He also raised a third (and new) protection claim at his Tribunal hearing relating to a loan taken out by his father from an illegal money lender. As outlined above, the Tribunal set out those claims in its written reasons (at [17]-[18]).
4. The Tribunal set out the applicant's evidence in some detail in its decision (at [33]-[46]). In particular, the applicant's evidence in relation to the Malaysian economy was set discussed at [35]-[38] and his evidence in relation to his father's debt was set out at [39]-[44] and [46].
5. The Tribunal then considered the applicant's evidence and made detailed findings about the applicant's claims regarding the economic situation in Malaysia at [55]-[59] in its written reasons. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's evidence in relation to his father's debts and, whilst the Tribunal was not satisfied with the applicant's explanation for the delay in making that claim, the Tribunal (for completeness) considered the applicant's evidence and made findings in that regard at [60]-[69].
6. The applicant, in both his application to the Court and his oral submissions at the hearing of this matter, failed to identify which facts or material he thought the Tribunal relied on that were either incorrect or related to another case.
7. The Court has reviewed the Tribunal's reasons as a whole and is itself satisfied that the Tribunal did not have regard to anything which could be described as "irrelevant" or that clearly related to another case or another applicant. The Tribunal had regard to information comprised of the documentary evidence before it, information and evidence provided by the applicant in relation to his review application and protection claims at the Tribunal hearing and country information, all of which were relevant and mandatory considerations.
8. No jurisdictional error arises in relation to grounds one or three.

2. THE TRIBUNAL DEPRIVED ME OF PROCEDURE FAIRNESS.

1. At the hearing of this matter, the applicant also suggested that the Tribunal had not given him enough time to prepare evidence and documents for the hearing.
2. Insofar as the applicant suggests that he did not have sufficient time to prepare for the Tribunal hearing, the Court disagrees for the reasons that follow.
3. The applicant in this matter sought review by the Tribunal on 25 January 2018 (CB 57-58).
4. The Tribunal acknowledged receipt of that review application on 30 January 2018 (CB 59-60). That acknowledgement letter also notified the applicant that he could provide it with additional information as follows (emphasis added) (CB 59):

If you wish to provide material or written arguments for us to consider, you should do so as soon as possible. In providing personal/sensitive information to us you are consenting the collection and use of that information for purposes under the Migration Act. We will collect personal/sensitive information about you and all applicants involved, if any, during the review. We will not issue a separate privacy notice on each instance of collecting/using such information.

1. The applicant did not provide the Tribunal with any additional information.
2. The applicant was invited to provide the Tribunal with further information again on 4 October 2023 by completing the pre-hearing questionnaire and returning it to the Tribunal within seven days (CB 61).
3. There is no evidence before the Court to indicate that the applicant returned the questionnaire to the Tribunal.
4. On 20 October 2023, the Tribunal invited the applicant to attend a Tribunal on 15 November 2023 (CB 62-65). That invitation letter also invited the applicant to provide any further documents to the Tribunal, as follows (CB 64):

Things to do before the hearing

Please provide all documents you intend to rely on to support your case by 8 November 2023. The decision made by the department should set out the reasons for the decision, and you should have regard to these, and any changes in your circumstances, in providing documents and preparing for the hearing. Any documents or written arguments sent to us should be in English and if not then accompanied by a translation from a qualified translator.

1. That hearing was ultimately postponed, however, there is no evidence before the Court to indicate that the Tribunal provided any further information to the Tribunal ahead of that hearing (save for a completed "Response to hearing invitation" form (CB 67-71)).
2. On 1 December 2023, the Tribunal again invited the applicant to attend a hearing before it (this one scheduled to take place on 30 January 2024) (CB 79-83). The applicant was again invited to provide any documents he intended to rely upon to the Tribunal by 23 January 2024 (CB 81).
3. The applicant did not respond to that invitation and did not provide any further information or materials to the Tribunal.
4. The applicant ultimately appeared at a hearing before the Tribunal on 30 January 2024 to give evidence and present arguments in support of his review application (CB 105-107).
5. As can be seen from the timeline above, the applicant had some six years to provide additional information or evidence to the Tribunal and the Tribunal gave the applicant multiple prompts and opportunities during that six-year period to do so. The applicant unfortunately chose not to avail himself of any of those opportunities.
6. No jurisdictional error arises in this regard.
7. To the extent that the applicant otherwise suggests that the Tribunal failed to comply with its obligations under s 422B of the Act (by failing to afford the applicant procedural fairness or failing to comply with the natural justice hearing rule), the Court disagrees for the reasons that follow.
8. As previously explained by this Court in ANE22 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FedCFamC2G 67 (and other similar matters), Division 4 of Part 7 of the Act (as was in force at the time of the Tribunal's decision in this matter) was taken to be an exhaustive statement of the requirements of the natural justice hearing rule in relation to matters of this sort: s 422B of the Act.
9. The Court is satisfied that the applicant in this matter was afforded natural justice.
10. Relevantly, the Court notes that:

(a) the applicant was advised by the Tribunal on 30 January 2018 that his review application to the Tribunal had been received and that he was entitled to "provide material or written arguments" for the Tribunal to consider (CB 59-60);

(b) the applicant was invited to provide information to the Tribunal by completing a questionnaire (CB 61);

(c) the applicant was invited in writing to attend a hearing before the Tribunal scheduled to take place on 15 November 2023, was asked to complete a "Response to Hearing Invitation" form and was advised that he could provide additional documents to the Tribunal upon which he intended to rely (CB 62-65);

(d) the applicant responded to that invitation on 26 October 2023 and attached a completed "Response to Hearing Invitation" form dated 26 October 2023 (CB 67-71). In that form, the applicant indicated that he did not intend to rely on any documents at that hearing and did not wish to call any witnesses (CB 69);

(e) after that initial hearing was postponed, the applicant was again invited in writing to attend a hearing before the Tribunal scheduled to take place on 30 January 2024, was again asked to complete a "Response to Hearing Invitation" form and was advised that he could provide additional documents to the Tribunal upon which he intended to rely (CB 79-83);

(f) the Tribunal advised the applicant (on 22 January 2024) , that whilst the hearing was scheduled to take place "in-person" in Brisbane, if the applicant was unable to appear in person, he could seek to appear by video conference (CB 84-85);

(g) the applicant attended the Tribunal hearing on 30 January 2024 (CB 105-107). The applicant was assisted at that hearing by an interpreter in the Malay and English languages (CB 105);

(h) there was no requirement for the Tribunal to put any information to the applicant for his comment because the information relied upon by the Tribunal was evidence given by the applicant or country information: s 424A(3) of the Act (as was in force at the time of the Tribunal's decision);

(i) the applicant was asked numerous questions by the Tribunal at the hearing before it and given ample opportunity to clarify or explain his claims, including raising a new protection claim not previously raised (CB 113 at [18] & 116-118 at [33]-[46]);

(j) there is no evidence before the Court to suggest that the applicant requested an adjournment or any additional time to provide further information to the Tribunal or that the applicant was otherwise not provided with a proper opportunity to present his case; and

(k) there is nothing to suggest that the Tribunal was anything but impartial and unbiased: SZRUI.

1. The Court is satisfied that the Tribunal gave the applicant every opportunity to provide evidence in support of his case over an extended period of time. The Court is also satisfied that the applicant was afforded natural justice in this matter.
2. No jurisdictional error arises in relation to ground two.

THE TRIBUNAL MEMBER FAILED TO ASK ME QUESTION ABOUT THE TYPES OF HARM RELAVANT IN MY CASE.

1. By ground four, the applicant suggests that the Tribunal failed to make enquiries or undertake further "investigations" in relation to the applicant's protection claims. The Court disagrees for the reasons that follow.
2. As outlined above (in relation to ground two), the Tribunal the afforded the applicant multiple opportunities to provide further evidence in support of his protection claims prior to the Tribunal hearing. The applicant did not provide any further information or evidence to the Tribunal at any time during the Tribunal review.
3. The Tribunal's written reasons also demonstrate that the applicant was asked numerous questions by the Tribunal (at the hearing before it) and given sufficient opportunity to clarify or explain his claims (including raising a new protection claim not previously raised in his visa application) (CB 113 at [18] & 116-118 at [33]-[46]).
4. It is also well established that it was not the Tribunal's responsibility to investigate or substantiate an applicant's protection claims: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v SGLB [2004] HCA 32 at [43]. That responsibility fell to the applicant.
5. This does not mean that the Tribunal should avoid assisting applicants (particularly those who appear before it without legal assistance) better articulate their concerns and the evidence they relied upon. That was done here.
6. It cannot be said here that the Tribunal failed to do that which was required of it in this matter.
7. No jurisdictional error arises in relation to ground four.

1. The application for judicial review (filed by the applicant on 5 March 2024) and the applicant's oral submissions to this Court have failed to identify any jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal.
2. This Court is otherwise unable to identify any error.
3. The substantive application for judicial review is, accordingly, dismissed.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and four (104) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Kendall.