Ahmad v Minister for Immigration

In *Ahmad v Minister for Immigration*, the applicant, Mr. Ahmad, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration to refuse his application for a protection visa. The dispute centred on whether the Minister's decision was affected by an error of law, specifically concerning the assessment of Mr. Ahmad's claims of persecution.

The primary legal issue before Judge Driver was whether the delegate of the Minister had failed to properly consider and assess the applicant's claims of past persecution and fear of future persecution, as required by the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and relevant international obligations. This involved determining if the delegate had adequately engaged with the evidence presented by Mr. Ahmad and applied the correct legal standards in assessing his credibility and the plausibility of his claims.

Judge Driver found that the delegate had made an error of law by failing to adequately assess the cumulative impact of the evidence relating to Mr. Ahmad's claims. The delegate had, in effect, compartmentalised the evidence, failing to consider how individual pieces of information, when viewed together, supported the applicant's narrative of persecution. This failure meant that the delegate did not properly engage with the substance of Mr. Ahmad's claims, leading to an unreasonable assessment. The court therefore concluded that the decision under review was vitiated by jurisdictional error.

The court ordered that the decision of the Minister be set aside and remitted to the Minister for redetermination according to law.