In BNE24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, handed down on 20 October, the Federal Court dismissed an appeal against the refusal of a protection visa, finding no jurisdictional error in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal’s adverse credibility assessment. Justice Colvin ruled that the Tribunal’s logic was not unreasonable merely because it doubted the applicant’s account of persecution in Fiji. The self-represented appellant had argued that the Tribunal failed to consider ‘impediments to relocation’ under Ministerial Direction 110, but the Court held that the Tribunal had addressed country-risk evidence adequately. While the decision does not create new law, migration lawyers say it reinforces the high threshold for judicial review and the importance of articulating legal—rather than factual—errors. Employers sponsoring staff on bridging visas should note that unsuccessful protection claims can trigger removal within 28 days, disrupting workforce continuity. The ruling also underscores the government’s focus on maintaining integrity in the protection program, a theme likely to surface in the forthcoming migration strategy white paper.
