BHK17 v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, BHK17, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant a protection visa. The dispute concerned whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution for a reason specified in the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The matter came before Judge Street of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant's subjective fear of persecution was objectively reasonable, given the available country information and the applicant's personal circumstances. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the Minister's delegate had properly assessed the risk of harm to the applicant upon return to their country of origin, considering the grounds of persecution alleged.

Judge Street applied the principles established in *Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh* and *Applicant V51/2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs*. The Court considered the applicant's account of past events and their subjective fear, alongside objective country information. The delegate's assessment was found to be deficient in its consideration of certain aspects of the applicant's claim, particularly concerning the nexus between the alleged persecution and a protected convention ground. The Court found that the delegate had failed to adequately assess the risk of harm in light of the specific circumstances presented by the applicant.

The Court ordered that the decision of the Minister be set aside and remitted to the Minister for reconsideration according to law.