arbiter
JournalsAccount

Reaching Reasonable Satisfaction: A Constructive Requirement for Protection Interviews?

Kristian Hollins

Federal Law Review2026https://doi.org/10.1017/fed.2025.10012article
ABDC A*
Weight
0.50

Abstract

This paper examines the role of interviews in Australian protection visa decision-making, arguing that while not a statutory requirement, interviews are often constructively required to ensure procedural fairness and achieve reasonable satisfaction. The analysis explores the evolution of departmental policy from an initial presumption favouring interviews to a more exceptionalist approach driven by administrative efficiency. It argues that this shift creates tension with the underlying legal framework and risks legal error. Analysis of key cases such as Plaintiff S157/2002, Saeed , and Chen , alongside departmental policy, suggests that failure to make obvious inquiries or engage with applicants directly, particularly regarding credibility, can constitute jurisdictional error. The paper calls for balanced procedures that identify when interviews are necessary while maintaining efficient processing.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/fed.2025.10012

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{kristian2026,
  title        = {{Reaching Reasonable Satisfaction: A Constructive Requirement for Protection Interviews?}},
  author       = {Kristian Hollins},
  journal      = {Federal Law Review},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/fed.2025.10012},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Reaching Reasonable Satisfaction: A Constructive Requirement for Protection Interviews?

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.