AHG18 v Minister for Home Affairs

The applicant, AHG18, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Minister for Home Affairs 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 membership of a particular social group. The Minister's delegate had refused the protection visa application, finding that the applicant's claims were not substantiated and that they did not meet the criteria for a protection visa under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The matter came before Judge Driver 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 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. This involved an examination of whether the delegate had adequately considered the evidence presented by the applicant regarding their fear of persecution and whether the delegate's adverse credibility findings were reasonably open on the material before them.

Judge Driver found that the delegate had failed to properly consider a significant portion of the evidence provided by the applicant, particularly concerning the specific nature of the threats faced and the reasons for the applicant's fear. The delegate's adverse credibility assessment was found to be based on an incomplete and therefore flawed understanding of the applicant's account. The Court held that a failure to consider all relevant evidence, or to properly weigh that evidence, constitutes a jurisdictional error. Consequently, the delegate's decision was vitiated by jurisdictional error.

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