AGP16 v Minister for Immigration

The applicants, AGP16 and another, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration. The dispute concerned the refusal of a Protection (Class XA) (Subclass 866) visa. The applicants claimed they feared harm from the second applicant’s family. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal had accepted that the applicants faced a risk of harm but considered it would be reasonable for them to relocate within their home country.

The court was required to determine whether the Tribunal’s decision was affected by an error of law. Specifically, the applicants contended that the Tribunal failed to properly consider the elements set out in relevant case law, including *SZATV* and *SZFDV*, and that its examination of the facts was not proper or exhaustive as required by decisions such as *MZANX* and *CSJ17*.

His Honour Judge Wilson found that the Tribunal had engaged in a proper and exhaustive, fact-intensive examination of the issues, addressing the elements canvassed in the cited authorities. The applicants failed to appear on the penultimate and final hearing dates. Pursuant to rule 13.03C(1)(e) of the court’s rules, the proceeding was considered on its merits. The application was dismissed.