reword to be an executive summary: Mr Brown has asked us to consider whether there was a constructive failure by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to perform its function on review. This is in the context of Member Jones copying the previous decision characterised by Member Carr to refuse Mr Brown's protection visa. Mr. Brown, seeking review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), initially enjoyed entitlement under relevant provisions of the Act. The AAT's review process, mandated by legislative framework, ensures accessibility, fairness, proportionality, and public trust. However, Member Jones's reliance on Member Carr's previous report raises procedural fairness concerns, potentially violating Mr. Brown's rights. Judicial principles, including those outlined in the Kioa v West case, underscore the significance of procedural fairness in individual cases like Mr. Brown's.

Member Jones's adoption of Member Carr's report without Mr. Brown's opportunity to present evidence may constitute a breach of procedural fairness. This copying not only calls into question the impartiality of the decision-making process but also raises concerns about compliance with statutory provisions like s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), aimed at ensuring fair proceedings.

Mr. Brown's options for challenging the Tribunal's decision include seeking judicial review in the Federal Court of Australia, particularly if there are breaches of natural justice or procedural fairness. Additionally, Ministerial Intervention under specific sections of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) remains a discretionary recourse. In the event of an unsuccessful review, avenues such as appealing to higher courts or seeking redress through human rights commissions could be explored, emphasizing the multifaceted approach available to address Mr. Brown's predicament.