Serious questions are being asked about the way refugee cases are considered after a tribunal was found to have adopted a "cut-and-paste" approach to its rulings.

Key points: Federal Court found a tribunal member who decided Hazara man's case had transposed three paragraphs from other refugee applications

Federal Court found a tribunal member who decided Hazara man's case had transposed three paragraphs from other refugee applications Judge found the transposed paragraphs were directly relevant to the decision to refuse the man a protection visa

Judge found the transposed paragraphs were directly relevant to the decision to refuse the man a protection visa The case will now be sent back to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for reconsideration

An Afghan Hazara asylum seeker who took his case to the Federal Court has exposed the practice, which lawyers discovered had occurred on several occasions.

The Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) was also criticised for refusing to accept that the Hazara man, who is an amputee, was at any greater risk in his home country because of his disability.

In a judgment handed down by the full Federal Court, it was found that the tribunal member who decided the Hazara man's case in 2013 had transposed three paragraphs from other asylum seekers' refugee applications.

In one instance, the man was referred to as "the 68-year-old applicant". In 2013, the man was in his early 30s.

In refusing the man a protection visa, the tribunal member, David Corrigan, also said "the [fact that] the applicant has not made any claim that he has ever previously been harmed or threatened in Kabul supports my findings".

In fact, the Hazara man had given evidence that he had been shot at as he drove a minibus, and his house had come under weapons fire on one occasion in the middle of the night.

Federal Court judge Andrew Greenwood found the transposed paragraphs were directly relevant to the decision to refuse the man a protection visa, and overturned the RRT decision.

Justice Greenwood said the RRT had denied the man a protection visa "on the basis of incorrect facts entirely unrelated to the individual circumstances of the applicant".

"In proceeding in this way, the tribunal has failed to discharge the statutory review function required of it

Tribunal cut and pasted on a number of occasions, court told

During the full Federal Court hearing, evidence was filed in court that revealed the RRT, which is now known as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), had been found to have used templates or cut-and-pasted paragraphs from separate asylum seeker applications on a number of occasions.

The Hazara man's lawyer, Thomas McLoughlin, said that was deeply concerning.

"A directive really has to be made that tribunal members just ought not do cut and paste," Mr McLoughlin said.

"For such a serious matter as life and death deportation of an asylum seeker, you just can't have cut and paste from other decisions with completely different facts in the wrong decision.

"This man's life is at risk. Afghanistan is more dangerous every day."

In his ruling, Justice Greenwood also found the RRT was wrong to conclude that the fact the man was an amputee did not place him at any greater risk of harm than an able-bodied person if he was to return to Afghanistan.

During the appeal, Immigration Minister Peter Dutton reiterated this point in submissions filed in court.

University of Sydney Professor Mary Crock said the RRT's conclusion was absurd.

"I do find it an extraordinary decision, particularly when you get the initial decision-maker saying things like, 'well, he lost his leg and so it's not likely that this would happen again'. I mean, really," Professor Crock said.

"Clearly people with one leg, particularly if they're placed in a situation where they are not able to get an appropriate prosthesis, they're much more vulnerable.

"It's obvious that they're more vulnerable than other members of the population."

AAT to consider Federal Court's judgment

A spokesperson for the AAT said the tribunal would "consider closely the Federal Court of Australia's reasons for judgment in this case".

"Refugee cases can involve similar claims and require the tribunal to consider the same country information. Therefore some similar content can be included in our decisions," the spokesperson said.

The AAT said overall, only 4 per cent of its rulings had been set aside by higher courts in the past five years.

The case will now be sent back to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for reconsideration. The Government has been ordered to pay the man's costs.