AQN16 v Minister for Immigration

In AQN16 v Minister for Immigration, the applicant sought judicial review of a decision made by the Minister for Immigration 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 brought proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia.

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 in support of 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 delegate's decision invalid.

Judge Street found that the delegate had indeed made a jurisdictional error. The Court's reasoning focused on the delegate's assessment of the applicant's credibility and the weight given to certain pieces of evidence. His Honour concluded that the delegate had not adequately engaged with the entirety of the evidence, particularly concerning the applicant's subjective fears and the objective country information. This failure to undertake a comprehensive and balanced assessment meant that the delegate had not properly exercised the power conferred upon them by the *Migration Act*.

Consequently, the Court made orders quashing the delegate's decision and remitting the application for a protection visa to the Minister for reconsideration according to law.