ACK16 v Minister for Immigration

ACK16 (the applicant) sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration (the respondent) to refuse to grant a protection visa. The applicant, who had arrived in Australia by boat, claimed to fear persecution in their country of origin due to their ethnicity and political opinion. The Minister's delegate had refused the protection visa application, finding that the applicant's claims were not credible and that they did not meet the criteria for a protection visa under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The matter came before Judge Riethmuller in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa was affected by jurisdictional error. Specifically, the applicant argued that the delegate failed to properly consider and assess all relevant evidence, including country information and the applicant's personal circumstances, when making the adverse credibility findings. The applicant contended that this failure amounted to an error in the exercise of the delegate's statutory power.

In her reasoning, Judge Riethmuller considered the principles of administrative law concerning the assessment of evidence and the making of findings of fact by decision-makers exercising statutory powers. Her Honour emphasised that a delegate must genuinely consider all the evidence before them and that a failure to do so, or a failure to provide adequate reasons for adverse credibility findings, can constitute jurisdictional error. The Court reviewed the delegate's reasons for decision and the evidence before the delegate, assessing whether the delegate had adequately engaged with the applicant's claims and the supporting material.

The Court found that the delegate's reasons for decision did not adequately explain the basis for the adverse credibility findings, particularly in relation to certain aspects of the applicant's account. Consequently, the Court concluded that the delegate's decision was affected by jurisdictional error. The Court ordered that the decision of the delegate be set aside and remitted to the respondent for reconsideration according to law.