AGY16 v Minister for Immigration

AGY16 (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 opinions. 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 Barnes 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. This involved examining whether the delegate had properly considered all the evidence before them, including the applicant's claims of persecution, and whether the delegate had applied the correct legal principles in assessing the applicant's credibility and the risk of harm. Specifically, the Court considered whether the delegate had failed to adequately assess the subjective and objective elements of the applicant's fear of persecution.

Judge Barnes found that the delegate had made a jurisdictional error by failing to adequately assess the applicant's subjective fear. The delegate's reasons for decision did not demonstrate a proper understanding of the applicant's stated fears and the basis upon which they were held. The Court held that a proper assessment of subjective fear requires the decision-maker to engage with the applicant's narrative and explain why, if at all, it is not accepted. The delegate's failure to do so meant that the decision was vitiated by jurisdictional error.

The Court ordered that the decision of the Minister's delegate be set aside and remitted to the Minister for redetermination according to law.