BKE17 v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, BKE17, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant a protection visa. The dispute centred on 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 primary legal issue before the Court was whether the delegate of the Minister had erred in finding that BKE17 did not hold a well-founded fear of persecution based on their imputed political opinion. This required the Court to consider the evidence presented by the applicant regarding their alleged experiences and the credibility assessment made by the delegate.

Judge Street's reasoning focused on the delegate's assessment of the applicant's credibility and the objective reasonableness of the fear. The Court applied the principles established in *Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh* and *Applicant A v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs*, which require a holistic assessment of the applicant's claims, considering both subjective fear and objective risk. The Court found that the delegate had failed to adequately consider certain aspects of the applicant's evidence and had made an error in assessing the plausibility of the imputed political opinion.

Consequently, the Court set aside the delegate's decision and remitted the application for a protection visa to the Minister for reconsideration according to law.