AKU18 v Minister for Home Affairs

The applicant, AKU18, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse to grant a protection visa. The applicant, who had arrived in Australia without a visa, claimed to fear persecution in their country of origin. The Minister's delegate had refused the protection visa application, a decision that was subsequently affirmed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The applicant then sought to challenge this refusal in the Federal Court.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa was affected by jurisdictional error. Specifically, the applicant contended that the delegate failed to properly consider and assess the evidence presented regarding their claims of persecution, thereby failing to satisfy the requirements of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth). The applicant argued that this failure amounted to a jurisdictional error, rendering the decision invalid.

Judge Street found that the delegate had indeed failed to adequately assess the applicant's claims. The Court reasoned that the delegate's decision-making process did not demonstrate a proper consideration of the evidence in its totality, particularly concerning the applicant's subjective fears and the objective country information. The Court applied the principles of administrative law, emphasizing that a decision-maker must genuinely consider all relevant evidence and provide adequate reasons for their findings. The delegate's reasons were found to be deficient in this regard, leading to the conclusion that the decision was affected by jurisdictional error.

The Court ordered that the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirming the delegate's refusal be quashed. The matter was remitted to the Tribunal to be heard and determined according to law.