Azafe v Minister for Immigration

In *Azafe v Minister for Immigration*, the applicants sought judicial review of a decision made by the Independent Protection Assessment Reviewer (the second respondent) concerning their application for a Protection (class XA) visa. The Minister for Immigration (the first respondent) was also a party to the proceedings. The dispute centred on whether the Reviewer had erred in law when recommending that the applicants not be recognised as persons to whom Australia has protection obligations.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the second respondent had made an error of law in its assessment of the applicants' eligibility for a protection visa. Specifically, the Court was required to determine if the Reviewer had misapplied the legal principles relating to complementary protection obligations and whether the applicants had satisfied the requirements of section 36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).

By consent, the Court declared that the second respondent had made an error of law by misapplying the law in relation to complementary protection obligations. The first respondent accepted that the second respondent had erred by suggesting in its reasons that the applicants were required to demonstrate that harm would be an inevitable consequence of their removal to Vietnam, rather than a necessary consequence. The Court otherwise dismissed the applications and ordered the first respondent to pay the applicants' costs.