BEN20 v Minister for Immigration

This matter concerned an application for judicial review brought by BEN20 against the Minister for Immigration. The applicant sought to challenge adverse credibility findings made by the Authority in relation to their application for a Safe Haven Enterprise Visa (SHEV). The application was heard by Judge Egan.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Authority acted unreasonably in the exercise of its discretion not to seek new information from the applicant, whether the Authority failed to give appropriate attention to the evidence before it, and whether the Authority failed to intellectually engage with the applicant’s clearly articulated claims. The central question was whether any of these alleged failures constituted jurisdictional error.

Judge Egan found no merit in the applicant's claims. The court applied the principles relating to legal unreasonableness and jurisdictional error as summarised in *DAO16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection* (2018) 258 FCR 175. The Authority's findings were based on a considered assessment and weighing of the facts before it, and were not found to be arbitrary, capricious, without common sense, plainly unjust, or extremely illogical. The court noted that while adverse credibility findings are subject to scrutiny, they do not automatically constitute jurisdictional error. A high degree of caution is required to avoid impermissibly embarking on merits review, and extreme illogicality must be demonstrated. The court concluded that the applicant had not established jurisdictional error.

The application was dismissed.