Applicant Veal of 2002 v MIMIA

The applicant, Veal of 2002, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (MIMIA). The dispute concerned the Minister's refusal to grant the applicant a protection visa. The matter was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Minister, in considering the applicant's claim for a protection visa, had failed to take into account a relevant consideration, namely the applicant's fear of persecution by non-state actors. This question arose in the context of the Minister's assessment of whether the applicant would be subject to "serious harm" as defined by the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

The High Court held that the Minister's decision-making process had been flawed. Their Honours reasoned that the definition of "serious harm" in the Migration Act encompassed harm inflicted by non-state actors, provided that the state was unable or unwilling to protect the individual from such harm. Consequently, the Minister was obliged to consider the applicant's fear of persecution by non-state actors as a relevant consideration when assessing the risk of serious harm. The Minister's failure to do so meant that the decision was vitiated by an error of law.

The High Court ordered that the appeal be allowed and the decision of the Minister be set aside. The matter was remitted to the Minister for reconsideration according to law.