Doy v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1539

1. Footnote 8 appears to refer to a website which contains information from a World Bank database. Footnote 9 refers to "Time Doctor website". Footnote 10 refers to "Horizons website". Footnote 11 refers to "Salary Expert website". Footnote 12 refers to "Fair Work Commission website". Hence, these footnotes refer to the sources of "external economic data", (see opening sentence of ground 1) specified in particular (a) of ground 1.
2. For the following reason, this complaint by the applicant concerning the Tribunal's reasons at [25] does not identify a jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decision. As stated at RS [31], pursuant to s 359A(4)(a) of the Act, the obligation in s 359A(1) to "give to the applicant ... clear particulars of any information that the Tribunal considers would be the reason ... for affirming the decision that is under review" did "not apply to information" "that is not specifically about the applicant or another person and is just about a class of persons of which the applicant or other person is a member". The country information in footnotes 8 to 11 is such information, that is information which falls within s 359A(4)(a): see VJAF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCAFC 178 at [11]- [16].
3. The Tribunal at [26] referred to a clause of the Republic of Indonesia's 1945 Constitution. It appears from the language in ground 1(a) and (b) that the applicant does not complain about the Tribunal's reliance on the 1945 Constitution. In any event, as stated by the first respondent at RS [32], the clause of the 1945 Constitution to which the Tribunal refers also falls within s 359A(4)(a). Further, it does not appear that the clause of the 1945 Constitution was "information that the Tribunal considers would be the reason, or a part of the reason, for affirming the decision that is under review": see SZBYR v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] HCA 26; 235 ALR 609 at [17].
4. The Tribunal at [70] stated:

1. By ground 1(c), the applicant contends the Tribunal denied the applicant procedural fairness "by formulating negative findings on material not given to me". The "material not given to me" was the country information specified in ground 1(a). This complaint by the applicant does not identify a jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decision. First, Division 5 of Part 3 of the Act, titled "Part 5-reviewable decisions: conduct of review", contains provisions concerning the conduct of a review by the Tribunal. Section 357A(1) states that Division 5 "is taken to be an exhaustive statement of the requirements of the natural justice hearing rule in relation to the matters it deals with". Section 359A appears to deal with the "matter" of "the provision of information, more generally relevant and adverse, for comment": Saeed v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] HCA 23; 241 CLR 252 at [42]. The applicant has not persuaded me that his complaint the subject of ground 1(c) involves a separate "matter" within the meaning of s 357A(1) which might be subject to an obligation to accord procedural fairness. Second, even if the common law obligation of procedural fairness applied to the matter the subject of the applicant's complaint in ground 1(c), I am not persuaded the Tribunal's failure to put the country information to the applicant for comment involved a denial of procedural fairness, since the country information was not a "foundation" for an important conclusion by the Tribunal (Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v NAMW [2004] FCAFC 264; 140 FCR 572 at [143]), or "significant to the decision" (NARV v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 262; 133 FCR 89 at ).

(1992) 174 CLR 509