Ahmed v Minister for Immigration

Ahmed (the applicant) sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration (the respondent) to refuse to grant him a protection visa. The applicant, who is from Iran, claimed to fear persecution on the basis of his imputed political opinion and his membership of the Hazara ethnic group. The delegate of the Minister had found that the applicant's claims were not credible and therefore did not engage Australia's non-refoulement obligations. The matter came before Judge Manousaridis 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 determining whether the delegate had properly considered and assessed the applicant's claims of fear of persecution, particularly in light of the evidence presented and the relevant provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth). The Court was required to assess whether the delegate's adverse credibility findings were open to be made on the material before them.

Judge Manousaridis found that the delegate had made a jurisdictional error by failing to adequately consider the applicant's evidence regarding his imputed political opinion. The delegate's adverse credibility findings were found to be based on an incomplete and selective review of the evidence, leading to an erroneous conclusion that the applicant's claims were not credible. The Court applied the principles of administrative law, emphasizing the obligation of a decision-maker to genuinely consider all relevant evidence and to provide reasons that are logically coherent and rationally support the conclusion reached.

The Court ordered that the decision of the delegate be set aside and remitted to the respondent for reconsideration according to law.