AMZ18 v Minister for Home Affairs

The applicant, AMZ18, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse to grant a protection visa. The dispute centred on whether the Minister's decision was affected by jurisdictional error. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Minister, in considering AMZ18's application for a protection visa, had failed to take into account a relevant consideration, namely the applicant's subjective fear of persecution. AMZ18 contended that the delegate who made the original decision, and by extension the Minister, had not properly assessed the subjective element of their fear, thereby vitiating the decision.

Judge Street reasoned that the assessment of a protection visa application requires a two-stage process: first, determining whether the applicant has a subjective fear of persecution, and second, assessing whether that fear is objectively well-founded. The Court found that the delegate's reasons for decision did not adequately demonstrate that the subjective fear had been properly considered. Specifically, the delegate's focus on the objective likelihood of harm, without a clear articulation of how AMZ18's personal experiences and beliefs contributed to their fear, indicated a failure to engage with the subjective element. This failure constituted a jurisdictional error.

Consequently, the Court ordered that the decision of the Minister for Home Affairs be set aside and remitted to the Minister for reconsideration according to law.