AKQ17 v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, AKQ17, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Minister for Immigration, which affirmed a decision to refuse to grant a protection visa. The dispute concerned the Minister's assessment of whether the applicant would be a person to whom Australia would have protection obligations under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The matter came before Judge Street of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Minister's decision was affected by jurisdictional error. Specifically, the Court was required to determine if the Minister had failed to consider relevant considerations or had taken into account irrelevant considerations when assessing the applicant's claims for protection, thereby vitiating the lawfulness of the decision.

Judge Street found that the Minister's delegate had failed to properly consider the applicant's claims regarding past persecution and the real chance of future persecution. The delegate's reasons did not adequately engage with the specific evidence provided by the applicant, particularly concerning the alleged actions of state actors and the applicant's fear of returning to their country of origin. The Court applied the principles established in administrative law concerning the duty to afford procedural fairness and the requirement for decision-makers to provide adequate reasons for their decisions, particularly in matters involving protection claims. The failure to properly consider the evidence and provide adequate reasons constituted jurisdictional error.

The Court ordered that the Minister's decision be set aside and remitted to the Minister for redetermination according to law.