CIA23 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FedCFamC2G 970

1. A "privative clause decision" as defined at s 474 of the Act is final and not amenable to judicial review in any Court. Absent identification of jurisdictional error, the Court has no jurisdiction to grant relief in respect of the Authority's decision: s 476 of the Act; Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth of Australia [2003] HCA 2; (2003) 211 CLR 476 at [76].
2. The task on judicial review is not to undertake a general review of the decision or to substitute it with a decision which the Court may consider ought to have been made. The jurisdiction, being supervisory, allows for a decision to be quashed on established grounds, the most important of which is jurisdictional error, and, where appropriate, to order that the matter be remitted and reconsidered according to law: Craig v South Australia [1995] HCA 58; (1995) 184 CLR 163 at [175].

1. The Applicants submit that the reports all conveyed that Tamil women continue to be sexually exploited. They submit that this was clearly raised in the country information, was plainly material and there is no reference to this issue in the Authority's reasons. They submit that the Authority's cursory mention of "allegations of sexual assaults and rape in the north and east" did not amount to engaging with the claim in an active intellectual way. It is submitted that had there been active intellectual engagement with the material, the Authority would have referred to it in its reasons, even if it were then rejected. The Applicants submit that the Authority ignored this material, constituting jurisdictional error.
2. The Applicants rely upon AWG18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCA 744 (AGW18).

1. For the following reasons, I reject the Applicants' submission that the Authority ignored specific sections of the 2018 DFAT Report and the UK Report.
2. Firstly, as submitted by the Minister, it is for the Applicants to establish that country information was overlooked: Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v MZYTS [2013] FCAFC 114 at [53]. It is clear from the Authority Decision that the Authority obtained new country information, at least in part, as that information included more current information regarding women in Sri Lanka. In its decision the Authority expressly referred to the:

1. The Authority was therefore aware of, had regard to, and considered, the country information.
2. Secondly, whilst a failure to refer to country information may, in certain circumstances, amount to jurisdictional error, as submitted by the Minister, the Authority is not required to engage in a line-by-line refutation of country information: Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Durairajasingham [2000] HCA 1 at [65]; Minister for Home Affairs v Buadromo [2018] FCAFC 151 at [48].
3. Thirdly, I consider that the Authority's reasons are consistent with it having reviewed and considered the entirety of the relevant sections of the 2018 DFAT Report for the following reasons:

(2013) 230 FCR 431

(2014) 309 ALR 67

(1995) 184 CLR 163

(2003) 211 CLR 476