AQM18 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

In this case, the applicant, AQM18, sought a judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to set aside a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and refuse her application for a protection visa. The applicant argued that the Minister's decision was made without jurisdiction, that the Minister misunderstood the legal consequences of refusing her a visa, that the Minister failed to afford natural justice by making a decision on a basis not disclosed to the applicant, and that the decision was affected by apprehended bias. The court was required to determine whether the Minister's decision was affected by jurisdictional error, whether the Minister misunderstood the legal consequences of a decision to refuse the applicant a visa, whether the Minister failed to afford natural justice, and whether the Minister's decision was affected by apprehended bias.

The court found that the Minister's decision was not made within a reasonable time and was therefore affected by jurisdictional error. The court also found that the Minister misunderstood the legal consequences of a decision to refuse the applicant a visa, as he did not consider the potential for using alternative management options to meet Australia's non-refoulement obligations in respect of the applicant. The court further found that the Minister failed to afford natural justice by making a decision on a basis that was not disclosed to the applicant, as he did not consider the applicant's co-operation with police and undertaking to give evidence for the prosecution. Finally, the court found that the Minister's decision was not affected by apprehended bias.

The court allowed the application for judicial review, set aside the Minister's decision, and remitted the matter to the Minister for reconsideration according to law. The court also ordered that the respondent pay the applicant's costs of the proceeding, subject to certain conditions. The reasons for the court's decision were to remain confidential to the parties to the proceeding until further order, and the parties were directed to file and serve a short submission as to the redactions that should be made to the court's reasons for judgment.