Federal Court. Was the Tribunal required to advise the applicant of his entitlement to seek a short adjournment so that he could provide statements from one of more of his siblings in Australia?
Some of the questions to the Federal Court (FCA) were as follows:
Question 1: When it is said that administrative reasons should be read beneficially, does this ultimately mean that "a commonsense and realistic approach should be taken to understanding the reasons as a whole to see what it was that the Tribunal was saying"?
Question 2: In the context of s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), can it be said that, "while there is a distinction between the exercise of a discretion and the question of whether the decision-maker is satisfied that another reason exists, both require an evaluative process of weighing relevant considerations to be undertaken and in both contexts, reference to the metaphor of weighing the considerations is orthodox"?
Question 3: Was the Tribunal required to advise the applicant of his entitlement to seek a short adjournment so that he could provide statements from one of more of his siblings in Australia?
Question 4: Is the Tribunal’s duty to assist an unrepresented person likely to be more extensive where the consequences of an adverse decision are serious?
Question 5: Can it be said that, "while the prospects of an adjournment being granted were not likely to be high and, even if granted, any period of adjournment would necessarily be constrained by the requirements of s 500(6J) and (6L), it does not follow that the applicant should not have been advised of his right to request an adjournment in order to put those documents to the Tribunal"?
The FCA answered those questions as follows: