Perry J summarised them in SZSZW v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 562 at [15]-[19]:
Secondly, the requirement under s 414 of the Act to “review” the decision requires that the Tribunal consider the applicant’s claims. As Allsop J (as his Honour then was) held in Htun v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1802; (2001) 194 ALR 244 at 259 [42]:
To make a decision without having considered all the claims is to fail to complete the exercise of jurisdiction embarked on. The claim or claims and its or their component integers are considerations made mandatorily relevant by the Act for consideration in the sense discussed in Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko Wallsend (1986) 162 CLR 24; and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 180 ALR 1. See also Sellamuthu v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 247, at [18], [19], [21] and [50]. It is to be distinguished from errant fact finding.
Thirdly, as I recently explained in SZTDY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 303 at [38] in determining whether a claim has been made attracting the obligation to consider it:
A failure to consider a contention amounting to a failure by the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction will relevantly arise where there has been a failure to consider a “substantial, clearly articulated argument” that, if accepted, might establish a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason (Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2003] HCA 26; (2003) 197 ALR 389 at [24] (Gummow and Callinan JJ (Hayne J agreeing at [95])); Plaintiff M61/2010 v Commonwealth of Australia [2010] HCA 41; (2010) 243 CLR 319 at [90] (the Court); see also the helpful recent discussion of relevant principle in SZSSC v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 863; (2014) 142 ALD 150 at [81]-[82] (Griffiths J). Equally, there will be a constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction if the Tribunal fails to consider a claim which “squarely” arises on the material before the Tribunal in the sense that “it is apparent on the face of the material before the Tribunal. Such a claim will not depend for its exposure on constructive or creative activity by the Tribunal”: NABE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (No. 2) [2004] FCAFC 263; (2004) 144 FCR 1 at [58] (the Court). In either case, the constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction may properly be seen as a failure to carry out the review required by s 414 of the Act: NABE at [55]; Htun v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1802; (2001) 194 ALR 244 at [42] (Allsop J with whom Spender J agreed at [1]).
(Abbreviations omitted.)
In the fourth place, the requirement to consider a claim or integers of a claim made by an applicant requires the application of an active intellectual process. As the Full Court held in Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v MZYTS [2013] FCAFC 114; (2013) 136 ALD 547 (MZYTS) at 559 [38], “[t]hat task could not be lawfully undertaken without a consciousness and consideration of the submissions, evidence and material advanced by the visa applicant…”.
A sharp contrast between permissible ‘cherry-picking’ of evidence (the Court’s words, not mine) to arrive at a Minister-favourable conclusion and a failure to properly consider evidence is ABAR15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (No 2) [2016] FCA 721. See [85]-[87], especially [86]-[87]:
Generally speaking, it may be open to the Minister (or, on review, the Tribunal) to cherry pick from among various sources of country information so as to form, by its own evaluation of the selected material, its own conclusions of fact. It may also be accepted that, as a general rule, an administrative decision that involves the weighing and evaluation of countervailing considerations is not a decision amenable to interference by a Court on judicial review merely because the Court might evaluate the considerations differently or accord different considerations more or less weight than that accorded by the Tribunal.
However, the material before the Tribunal did not contain conflicting statements as to the effectiveness of domestic violence laws in Vietnam so that the Tribunals’ decision could properly be viewed as one involving the preference of one body of evidence over another. The statements and opinions expressed in the reports concerning the effectiveness of the law were consistent, not countervailing. They were not contradicted by any other material to which the Tribunal referred.