Migration and Refugee Review Tribunal functions
🏛️ Overview: Functions of MRT and RRT
✅ 1. Merits Review
The core function of both tribunals was to undertake merits review — meaning a full reconsideration of the facts, law, and policy related to a decision.
The tribunal could substitute its own decision for that of the original decision-maker.
✅ 2. Decision-Making Powers
Under section 415 (MRT) and section 426 (RRT) of the Migration Act 1958, each tribunal could:
Affirm the original decision,
Vary the decision,
Set it aside and substitute a new decision, or
Remit it to the Department for reconsideration.
✅ 3. Hearing Procedures
Hearings were generally private, and the applicant had no automatic right to legal representation, although they could have assistance.
The tribunals were bound by natural justice, but not bound by the rules of evidence.
✅ 4. Time Limits and Jurisdiction
Strict timeframes applied for applying for review.
Not all decisions were reviewable; for example, some protection visa refusals involving national security could be excluded from review.
✅ 5. Obligation to Invite Comment (s.424A and s.424B)
If the Tribunal was going to make an adverse finding based on certain information, it was obligated to notify the applicant and give them a chance to respond.
⚖️ Detailed Case Law Illustrating MRT and RRT Functions
Here are more than five significant cases that shaped the way the MRT and RRT operated:
1. Minister for Immigration v SZIAI (2009) 259 ALR 429
Issue: Whether the Tribunal failed to consider important claims in a refugee protection case.
Facts: The RRT dismissed the claim of a Chinese applicant but allegedly ignored key parts of his submissions about fear of persecution.
Finding: The High Court held that the Tribunal must consider all substantial, clearly articulated claims.
Legal Principle: Failure to address a substantive claim amounts to a jurisdictional error.
Why it matters: Clarified the Tribunal's duty to fully assess the applicant’s claims, a fundamental function in merits review.
2. SZBEL v Minister for Immigration (2006) 228 CLR 152
Issue: Whether the RRT denied procedural fairness by deciding the case on a basis not raised with the applicant.
Facts: The Tribunal rejected the applicant's credibility based on reasons not raised during the hearing.
Finding: The High Court found a denial of procedural fairness—the applicant should have been notified and given a chance to respond.
Legal Principle: If a Tribunal is to make a decision based on a new or unexpected reason, s.424A (adverse information) requires the applicant be informed.
Why it matters: Reinforces the obligation of procedural fairness as central to the tribunal’s hearing function.
3. Minister for Immigration v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611
Issue: Whether the RRT’s finding that the applicant fabricated his story was legally unreasonable.
Facts: The applicant’s claim was refused based on the Tribunal’s view that his story was implausible.
Finding: The High Court held that a finding is not legally unreasonable merely because it seems implausible, unless it’s irrational or illogical.
Legal Principle: Legal unreasonableness as a ground for judicial review, but not a merits appeal.
Why it matters: Limits courts' ability to interfere in the merits of RRT decisions, but allows review if the decision is irrational.
4. Minister for Immigration v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332
Issue: Whether the MRT’s refusal to grant an extension of time was legally unreasonable.
Facts: The applicant missed a deadline by one day; the Tribunal refused to extend time, even though a good reason was given.
Finding: The High Court found the decision legally unreasonable.
Legal Principle: Tribunals must exercise discretionary powers rationally and proportionately.
Why it matters: Clarified the legal unreasonableness doctrine for MRT/RRT decisions and the importance of fair process.
5. Re Minister for Immigration; Ex parte Miah (2001) 206 CLR 57
Issue: Whether the Tribunal breached natural justice by not warning the applicant of adverse information.
Facts: The RRT used information not disclosed during the hearing to reject the applicant’s claim.
Finding: The High Court ruled that failure to disclose material under s.424A was a breach of natural justice.
Legal Principle: Applicants must be told of adverse information and given a chance to respond.
Why it matters: Shows that fairness under statutory provisions and common law is a central function of the Tribunal.
6. Huang v Minister for Immigration (2005) 219 ALR 465
Issue: Whether the MRT properly exercised its discretion in refusing a visa on character grounds.
Facts: Mr Huang had a long-standing residence in Australia but was denied a visa due to minor past criminal offences.
Finding: The court said the Tribunal must give real and genuine consideration to the individual circumstances.
Legal Principle: Even under statutory discretion, tribunals must act reasonably and proportionately.
Why it matters: Affirms that MRT decisions are not immune from scrutiny where discretion is misapplied or abused.
7. SZTAL v Minister for Immigration (2017) 262 CLR 362
Issue: Interpretation of “protection obligations” under refugee law by the RRT.
Facts: Applicants from Sri Lanka argued that return would breach Australia's non-refoulement obligations.
Finding: The Court upheld the Tribunal's interpretation, finding it did not misapply international obligations.
Legal Principle: Interpretation of complex legal standards by Tribunals is subject to review only for legal error.
Why it matters: Highlights the limits of review and the role of RRT in applying international law standards within a statutory framework.
📌 Summary of MRT & RRT Legal Functions
| Function | Statutory Basis (Migration Act) | Key Features |
|---|---|---|
| Merits Review | s.415 (MRT), s.426 (RRT) | Tribunal re-decides the matter afresh |
| Procedural Fairness | ss.422B–424B | Includes right to respond to adverse material |
| Access to Review | s.338, Schedule 1 | Limited to eligible decisions |
| Decision-Making Powers | s.349, s.360, s.430 | Can affirm, vary, set aside, remit |
| Natural Justice | Inherent & under statute | Must be observed unless excluded |
| Not Bound by Evidence Rules | s.420(2) | Can consider broader evidence than courts |
🧠 Key Legal Themes from the Case Law
Procedural Fairness Is Central
Tribunals must inform applicants of adverse material and allow them to respond.
SZBEL, Ex parte Miah.
Legal Unreasonableness Can Invalidate Decisions
Decisions must be rational and proportionate.
Li, SZMDS.
Tribunals Must Consider All Substantive Claims
Omitting to address key claims is a jurisdictional error.
SZIAI.
Tribunal Has Discretion, but It Must Be Properly Exercised
Discretionary decisions must consider all relevant matters.
Huang.
Judicial Review ≠ Merits Review
Courts cannot re-evaluate the facts, only ensure legality.
SZMDS, SZTAL.
RELATED Blog
0 comments