AIX15 v Minister for Immigration

AIX15 (the applicant) sought judicial review of a decision made 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 had refused the protection visa application, finding that the applicant did not meet the criteria for a protection visa under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The matter came before Judge McNab in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Minister's decision to refuse the protection visa was affected by jurisdictional error. Specifically, the Court was required to consider whether the delegate of the Minister had failed to properly consider the applicant's claims of persecution, particularly in relation to the assessment of the risk of harm and the availability of protection within their country of origin. The applicant argued that the delegate had overlooked or undervalued crucial evidence supporting their claims.

Judge McNab found that the delegate had indeed made a jurisdictional error. The reasoning focused on the delegate's failure to adequately engage with the applicant's evidence concerning the specific risks they faced due to their ethnicity and political beliefs. The Court held that the delegate had not properly assessed the real chance of harm, nor had they sufficiently considered whether effective protection was available to the applicant in their country of origin. This failure to undertake a comprehensive and balanced assessment of the evidence constituted a failure to exercise the power conferred by the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) according to law.

Consequently, Judge McNab quashed the Minister's decision and remitted the application for a protection visa to the Minister for redetermination according to law.