AXP18 v Minister for Home Affairs

This case concerned an application for judicial review brought by AXP18 against the Minister for Home Affairs. The applicant contended that the Court, in conducting its review, should assess the reliability and accuracy of country information considered by the Authority, relying on the High Court's decision in *CRI026 v Republic of Nauru* [2018] HCA 19 and the Full Federal Court's decision in *Singh*. The Minister argued that this approach was contrary to the established principle that the assessment of country information and the weight to be given to it are matters for the decision-maker, as articulated in *NAHI v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs* [2004] FCAFC 10.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether *CRI026* and *Singh* altered the long-standing principle that courts should not substitute their own judgment for that of the administrative decision-maker regarding the assessment of country information. Specifically, the Court had to determine if these cases permitted or required it to scrutinise the reliability and accuracy of the country information relied upon by the Authority, or if the assessment of such information remained solely within the purview of the decision-maker. A further issue was whether the applicant's reliance on *CRI026* was appropriate, given that the facts of the present case did not involve internal relocation, which was a key element in *CRI026*.

Judge Kendall found the Minister's submissions to be sound. The Court affirmed that the principle established in *NAHI*, that the assessment of country information is a matter for the decision-maker, remains valid and was not overruled by *CRI026* or *Singh*. The Court noted that while *CRI026* did require reliable information for assessing internal relocation, the present case did not involve internal relocation. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that while *Singh* and *SZVFW* indicated that legal unreasonableness is fact-dependent and requires scrutiny of factual circumstances, this scrutiny must not involve merits review or the substitution of the Court's own judgment for that of the decision-maker. The mere existence of conflicting or inconsistent evidence does not render all evidence unreliable, nor does it mean that a decision-maker's reliance on particular information is necessarily unreasonable. The Authority had appropriately considered the country information relevant to the applicant's home area and provided clear reasons for its decision, demonstrating no unreasonableness.