AEW18 v Minister for Home Affairs

AEW18 (the applicant) sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Home Affairs (the respondent) to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection Visa. The applicant, who had arrived in Australia without a visa, claimed to fear persecution in their country of origin. The Minister's delegate had refused the application, finding that the applicant's claims were not credible and that they did not meet the criteria for a Protection Visa. The matter came before Judge Street in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the delegate's decision to refuse the Protection Visa application was affected by jurisdictional error. Specifically, the Court was required to determine if the delegate had failed to consider relevant considerations or had taken into account irrelevant considerations when assessing the applicant's claims of persecution. The applicant argued that the delegate had not adequately assessed the evidence presented and had made findings that were not supported by the material before them.

Judge Street found that the delegate had indeed made jurisdictional error. The delegate's assessment of the applicant's credibility was found to be flawed, as it relied on an overly narrow interpretation of the evidence and failed to engage with significant aspects of the applicant's testimony. The Court held that a proper assessment of a Protection Visa application requires a holistic and nuanced consideration of all available evidence, including the applicant's subjective experience and the objective country information. The delegate's failure to do so meant that the decision was vitiated by error.

The Court quashed the delegate's decision and remitted the application to the Minister for redetermination according to law.