AJB18 v Minister for Home Affairs

The applicant, AJB18, sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) concerning a protection visa application. The applicant was a child born in Australia to Nepalese parents. The mother had previously made refugee claims which had been rejected. The dispute centred on whether the applicant child was entitled to protection, and whether the mother was entitled to complimentary protections, in light of her prior rejected claims and the child's circumstances. The matter came before Judge Christopher Kendall of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine several key legal issues. These included the effect of section 48A of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) on the applicant's claim, given the mother's previous unsuccessful refugee claims. The court also had to consider whether the applicant child was at risk of harm due to the mother's past political activities and the parents' marital status. Furthermore, the court was asked to assess whether the AAT's decision was unreasonable, illogical, or irrational, and whether the Tribunal had overlooked relevant claims and evidence.

In his reasoning, Judge Kendall found that there was no jurisdictional error on the part of the AAT. The Tribunal had properly considered the relevant provisions of the *Migration Act*, including section 48A, and had not overlooked material evidence or claims. The court determined that the AAT's assessment of the risk of harm to the child, in the context of the mother's prior claims and the family's circumstances, was open to it and was not illogical or irrational. The principles applied related to the standard of review for AAT decisions, the interpretation of migration legislation, and the assessment of risk in protection visa claims.

The application was dismissed.