Federal Court. Was there a need for the IAA's assessment of the credibility of a letter to coincide with that of the delegate? Entry interview form for unauthorised maritime arrivals asked: "1. Why did you leave your country of nationality (country of residence)? ... 7. Were there any armed groups, political groups, or religious groups operating in the area you lived?" Was Question 1 of the entry interview form asking about reasons for not wanting to return? Could Question 7 of the entry interview form be read as eliciting information about the receiving end of conduct? Is IAA required to give reasons for why it finds an applicant lacks credit?
The Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) affirmed a decision of a delegate to refuse to grant the Appellant a SHEV. Some of the questions to the Federal Court (FCA) were as follows:
Question 1: Was there a need for the IAA's assessment of the credibility of a letter provided to the delegate to coincide with that of the delegate?
Question 2: Was Question 1 of the entry interview form asking about reasons for not wanting to return?
Question 3: Could Question 7 of the entry interview form be read as eliciting information about the receiving end of conduct?
Question 4: Is the IAA required to give reasons for why it finds an applicant lacks credit?
Question 5: Appellant dispensed with the services of his solicitor before the Federal Circuit Court (FCCA) and then applied for an adjournment, which was declined. Did the fact that the Appellant did not have to terminate the services of his own lawyer during the hearing weigh against the argument that he was denied procedural fairness by the FCCA?
Question 6: Did the fact that the Appellant had benefit of his solicitor’s written submissions and an opportunity to present oral submissions weigh against the argument that he was denied procedural fairness by the FCCA?
The FCA answered those questions as follows: